The Secretary of State was asked—

Bob Ainsworth: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor meant, for example, that the Treasury has lifted the urgent operational requirements ceiling of £635 million, which was announced in December, to include another £101 million, so that we get the latest capability into theatre. Everything that we need for that theatre of operations, we will present, and we will make sure that we get what is needed to keep our troops as safe as they can be. At a time when we are involved in the most serious operations in theatre—not only ourselves, but the Americans—people are contrasting the kit and equipment that we have with the Americans', but our colleagues have lost more people over the past couple of weeks than we have, despite their great inventory.

Bob Ainsworth: Absolutely. I have not personally come across that opinion out there, but I would not deny that there will be Afghans who hold that view. My hon. Friend is right. This operation will not be won by killing Taliban. It will be won by winning over the people—by protecting the people, and by the people accepting that we and the Afghan Government are on their side. That is the absolute priority of the new commander, General McChrystal, in the instructions that he is giving to forces of all nations in Afghanistan.

Bob Ainsworth: It never was said that there was hope of not a shot being fired. What was said—it was said from the Dispatch Box and elsewhere, and I remember that I was sat in that chair along there at the time—by the then Secretary of State was that we would be happy if not a shot were fired. He was responding to a question. He was expressing a desire, but he would not have been putting 16 Air Assault Brigade into a theatre of war if he thought that there would not be a little bit of trouble in the area.

Bob Ainsworth: I would say two things to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. First, I keep hearing that there is no strategy. If people want to disagree with the strategy, that is fair enough, but please let no one deny that there is one. The strategy is about building up Afghan capability, both in security and in governance, so that the Afghans can get to a point where they are able to defend their own country from the insurgency and provide the basics for their own people. It will be a long time before they can do that. Afghan tax revenues doubled in the past year, but the Afghans will be dependent on international donations for a long time yet.
	Secondly, there is a strategy, but let us not pretend that its existence will get us out of a situation where our people must take on a very ingrained insurgency right in the heartland. They know how important it is that they maintain control of those central Helmand belts. Our people are going in there and clearing the insurgency from that heartland. That is why our people are fighting. They know how important it is—how utterly important it is—to hang on. Sadly, we have lost some people. The insurgency has lost a lot of people—

Tom Watson: It is a very great shame that we are currently engaged in an unseemly media row about airlift in Afghanistan. The defence world will know what that is about. It will expect my right hon. Friend—I hope he agrees—to commit in future to put pressure on a Chancellor to maintain funding for defence; and it will expect the Opposition Front-Bench team to commit the current shadow Chancellor to end his shameful refusal not to commit even to existing defence spending.

Liam Fox: On behalf of the Opposition, may I add my condolences to the families of the servicemen killed in the past week? Every single death is an individual tragedy, and our thoughts and prayers are with all the families and friends involved.
	When the Government cut the helicopter budget in 2004 by £1.4 billion, was it a mistake?

David Taylor: The delayed agreement and sign-off of defence information infrastructure stage 3 is but the latest debacle for a benighted project that has already more than tripled in cost to more than £7 billion. A tight review of defence spending is imminent. Why are civil servants and politicians so obsessed with outsourcing public sector IT contracts, given that the logic and economics of extra costs and complexity point in precisely the opposite direction?

Quentin Davies: My hon. Friend is factually wrong on a number of those points. The budgeted costs certainly have not increased by 300 per cent., as he suggests; there has been a much more limited increase of about £180 million out of the £7.1 billion. I have to say to my hon. Friend that this project is going to save money in comparison with legacy methods of fulfilling the same role. That is very important. Also, it is an absolutely essential part of modern warfare that we should have effective, secure communications, linking all aspects of our armed forces, at home and abroad in theatre. That is part of the network-enabled capability to which we are committed.

Bob Ainsworth: The estimated financial cost of operations in Afghanistan for this financial year is £3.5 billion, as recently published for the first time in the MOD's main estimates. The cost of military operations is dependent on a number of variable factors that are difficult to predict, including changes to operational tempo and the conditions in theatre at the time. We do not, therefore, attempt to project costs for the subsequent two years.

James Duddridge: Following the Chancellor's pledge over the weekend that our forces will have whatever they need, how does the Secretary of State anticipate funding future operational requirements, given that in future years his ministry will have to pay back every penny over £635 million that it spends on urgent operational requirements? Is that not a case of robbing the future to pay for the military today?

Bob Ainsworth: We have not gone over those limits, and therefore there is no need for a repayment. I have just announced to the House that the £635 million limit has been raised by a further £101 million; that is some indication that the Chancellor is trying to assist.

David Laws: The Secretary of State said a moment ago that Merlin and Lynx Mark 9 helicopters are being prepared for use in Afghanistan, but what further steps is the Department considering to ensure that helicopter needs in Afghanistan are met in future?

Bob Ainsworth: We are planning a spend of about £6 billion on helicopters over the coming years. We need to try to spend that as wisely as we can to ensure that we have no capability gap, particularly when our people are involved in the operations that they are today.

Kevan Jones: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Unfortunately men, especially young men, are terrible at recognising mental health problems. I pay tribute, however, to all three services for raising the matter of mental health in-service. TRiM—trauma risk management—is a system of self-assessment pioneered by the Royal Marines, and it is ensuring that mental health problems do not carry a stigma and that people are not ashamed of reporting them. Working with veterans organisations and the NHS on six mental health pilots, we can ensure that there is help for veterans whenever mental health affects individuals.

Bob Ainsworth: The Government are committed to the current nuclear deterrent and to the development of a replacement system. Good progress is being made in completing the actions set out in the 2006 White Paper, "The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent".

Bob Ainsworth: The Prime Minister also made it clear that he was committed to maintaining the nuclear deterrent. We need to try to make an appropriate contribution to any multilateral nuclear proposition, while at the same time ensuring that we have a credible minimum nuclear deterrent. The entire Government—not only the defence team—are committed to doing that.

Julian Lewis: Can the Secretary of State confirm that any future nuclear deterrent that involved reliance on nuclear-armed Cruise missiles, as some recommend, would be compatible with the provisions of the 1987 intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty?

Bob Ainsworth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we considered different methods of maintaining the nuclear deterrent during the White Paper process. We decided—I think for good reasons of invulnerability—to stick with the ballistic missile system based on submarines. That is what we intend to do.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State think it a good idea to commit ourselves to expenditure, during the lifetime of a new Trident, of £76 billion, ahead of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference next year and in the face of a declared aspiration by President Obama, which is shared by the Government, of a nuclear-free world? Would not a better contribution be not replacing Trident?

David Clelland: Procuring the right up-to-date equipment is vital for our troops, but it can also provide skilled work for British workers, not least in my constituency at BAE Systems in Scotswood road in Newcastle. What prospect is there of an announcement early in 2010 on the future rapid effect system—FRES—the Warrior upgrade and the Scout and AFV support vehicles?

Quentin Davies: I do not accept that we have failed in producing helicopter capability in Afghanistan. The Secretary— [ Interruption. ] No, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just set out some of the figures, including an 80 per cent. increase in the availability of helicopter hours over the past two and a half years. We also have an enormous programme of procurement of new helicopters: there are the Danish Merlins and the— [ Interruption. ] I am coming to that in a second. There are the Merlins that are coming back from Iraq and being fitted up to theatre-entry standard for Afghanistan, as well as the prospect of the eight Mk 3 Chinooks, which will be available for operations again by the end of this year. There is also the re-engining of the Lynx helicopters and the prospect of Wildcat, which is being manufactured. That is a very good record. As for the Merlins from Denmark, they are being upgraded to theatre-entry standard as rapidly as possible. I cannot responsibly force through such procedures more rapidly than the experts can deliver them. Indeed, that would be an extremely dangerous thing to do.

Alan Reid: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. We recently found that the carriers would require an extra £1 billion. Can he tell us whether the Government are fully committed in all circumstances to a like-for-like replacement for Trident and to two new aircraft carriers and, if they are, what their strategy is for ensuring over the next 20 years that the Ministry of Defence can provide the resources required to ensure that our troops are fully equipped for all the challenges that they face?

Bob Ainsworth: There seems to be a little contradiction between the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), who is sitting right next to him—

Bill Rammell: I believe that the strategy and the tactics are working; we are facing an extraordinarily difficult set of challenges, however. The hon. Gentleman's point about increasing the capacity of the Afghan forces is absolutely key. There are 90,000 troops in the Afghan national army; over the next couple of years, that figure will increase to 134,000. In the meantime, we are right to pursue the approach we are pursuing—taking back and reclaiming ground from the Taliban, bit by bit, so that we can spread the authority of the Afghan national army and its Government.

Nadine Dorries: I wonder how many troops the Minister believes we need on the ground in Afghanistan in order to achieve our objectives? Does he believe that the Chief of Staff, General Dannatt is the man who knows best what is happening in Afghanistan or is it a man in a Westminster office?

Bill Rammell: We have rightly increased our troop numbers from 5,500 to 9,000. I think that that was the right thing to do, but we are also there as part of a multinational coalition—of 42 nations working together on this challenge—so the idea that we alone are responsible for facing up to that challenge is, I believe, fundamentally wrong.

John Robertson: Back in March, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) about the MARS—military afloat reach and sustainability—project. He said earlier that the most important thing was to get the contracts for the carriers up and running. Now that we have the steel cut—I thank him on behalf of the Clyde—is it not time to look at the MARS project to add the extra work that is so dearly needed for the years to come?

Quentin Davies: We are looking at the MARS project, but I do not want my hon. Friend to be under any illusion about it. Where building war-fighting vessels such as the carriers or the Future Service Combatant, which will come on line after the carriers, are concerned, we have made a strategic decision as part of the defence industrial strategy to ensure that those ships are built—and, of course, subsequently supported—in this country. Where we are talking about logistic support ships or tankers, however, that does not apply, as we need to get the best value for money. It would thus be quite wrong to say that those ships are being reserved for the shipyards in the Clyde or elsewhere in the UK, but that does not mean that British shipyards would not be most welcome to bid for them—indeed, we would be delighted if they did and if they won a contract on a best-value basis. I must make it clear, however, that when we procure those ships, it will be done on that basis.

Tobias Ellwood: I have just returned from a visit to Afghanistan and I have nothing but praise for our forces working in Helmand province. I have to say, however, that I think this Government should hang their heads in shame for sending our troops out to a war without enough manpower or heavy-lift helicopters. Let me ask the Secretary of State what will happen when the fighting stops and Babaji is declared clear. What is our plan for reconstruction and development? I asked a series of senior officers and not one of them had any idea of what was going to happen once the bullets stopped flying. I urge the Secretary of State to look into this. He has a budget of £2.6 billion, and the Department for International Development has £166 million and that—

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend has strong views, which he has expressed over a period of time. Let us not deny that the situation in Afghanistan is less than perfect. We have to strive to improve it, but some of the abuses perpetrated under the Taliban regime when it was in power were utterly appalling and pretty comprehensive—and still are in those areas where the Taliban hold sway. My hon. Friend, I would have thought, should temper his views with regard to the Karzai Government.

Alison Seabeck: As my hon. Friends will know, the British public understand very well how many casualties are occurring among the British forces in the offensive in Afghanistan but are less aware of the losses being experienced by our allies, the Afghans and others—and, indeed, of those being experienced by the Taliban. Are any estimates available?

Bill Rammell: I cannot give precise figures, but I think my hon. Friend is right. There have been casualties across the coalition, and their numbers are equally significant to the numbers we have lost. That underlines the fact that we have arrived at a critical phase of the campaign. We are harming the Taliban—that is why they are fighting as strongly as they are—and we need to keep pursuing our current strategy to ensure that we can succeed.

Bob Ainsworth: We face an acute dilemma. We have to strike a balance between giving the required priority to the operations in which we are now involved—difficult as they are, as the right hon. Gentleman says—and trying to ensure that we can respond to the many threats we may well face in the coming years. That is quite properly the province of a strategic defence review. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's party is committed to such a review in 2010, as are the Liberal Democrats and as are we.

Michael Mates: Does the Secretary of State share my disappointment at the fact that we seem to be losing the argument about Trident purely because of the financial bill? Would it not be better if, rather than his giving us holding replies as he did today and referring back to 2006, we started an open debate about the strategy and the options—as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis)—so that people can begin to understand why we need it?

Willie Rennie: Is it good value for money to spend an additional £1 billion on the aircraft carriers without creating one extra job or any additional capability on those carriers? Will the Secretary of State guarantee that there will be no further delays in the construction of these carriers?

Gordon Brown: This has been a sad and difficult time for our armed forces and for our country, and I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our sincere condolences to the families and friends of the servicemen killed in Afghanistan in the past few days: Rifleman Daniel Hume, 4th Battalion the Rifles; Private John Brackpool, Prince of Wales's Royal Regiment; Riflemen Daniel Simpson, Joseph Murphy, James Backhouse and William Aldridge and Corporal Jonathan Horne, all of the 2nd Battalion the Rifles; and Corporal Lee Scott, 2nd Royal Tank Regiment. Riflemen Murphy, Backhouse and Aldridge were just 18 years of age. It is at times of loss and sadness such as these that we become ever more aware of the service and the sacrifice our armed forces give for our country. We owe them, and all those who have been killed or wounded in conflict, a huge debt of gratitude.
	I want to make a statement about the conclusions of the G8 meeting, the major economies forum on climate change, and our outreach meetings with African leaders, and to thank Prime Minister Berlusconi for his organisation of the G8 and related summits, but first I will focus on one of the most important and urgent matters considered in detail at our G8 meeting. This is a time of great challenge for our armed forces serving in Afghanistan. I have written to the Chair of the Liaison Committee and placed a copy of the letter in the Libraries of both Houses, and we are also making time available on Thursday for a debate on Afghanistan, but perhaps, Mr. Speaker, following the G8 discussions I could take this opportunity to update the House on our current strategy and operations in Afghanistan, alongside 40 other nations, and our work with Pakistan.
	Eight years ago, after 11 September 2001, the case for intervention in Afghanistan was clear: it was to remove the Taliban regime and deprive al-Qaeda of a safe base for terrorist plots that were a threat to countries around the world. In 2009, the case for our continued involvement is the same: to prevent terrorist attacks here in Britain and across the world by dealing with the terrorist threat at its source—that crucible of terror on the border and mountain areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We must not forget that three quarters of terror plots against the United Kingdom have roots in these areas.
	To succeed, we must succeed both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so our strategy, which I set out to the House in April, reflects an integrated approach to both countries. If progress in one is to be sustainable, we must have progress in both, and progress requires three things: military action against terrorists and the insurgency; action to build the rule of law; and economic and social development to give local people a stake in their future.
	In the last few months, the Pakistan Government have taken action, launching successful operations to drive out the Pakistan Taliban from the Swat and Buner regions. While the overwhelming majority of the Pakistani people fully support their Government's actions, operational success has come at a high humanitarian cost, with about 2 million displaced people. As we must ensure that this does not become a pretext for radicalisation, we are helping to lead in providing humanitarian assistance to Pakistan—as are other G8 countries—for these internally displaced people, combining our support for Pakistan's security and military forces with development assistance and help with reconstruction.
	In Afghanistan, international forces must take the lead on the front line, because the Afghan army and police are not yet able to maintain control alone. Again, our strategy is to combine coalition military action with civilian support for development and training the Afghan forces to take more control.
	As the House knows, British troops are today involved in a major military operation—Panther's Claw—fighting to bring security to areas in central Helmand until now beyond the reach of the Afghan Government. American forces are engaged in a similar, co-ordinated operation in the south of the province. We are combining our military advance with civilian action. When we go into the towns and villages and districts in Helmand, our forces are supported by the Afghan army and police who, with our help, can hold the ground that we are clearing, and prevent the Taliban from returning. Our civilian and military stabilisation experts work with Governor Mangal and his district governors to follow up with plans for new roads, clean water and other basic services including, above all, justice—not the mediaeval brutality of the Taliban, but the rule of law.
	Earlier this year we announced an increase in our numbers for the summer campaign and the Afghan election period to around 9,000. Today, the figure on the ground is just above 9,100, as commanders rotate troops that have been fighting at peak intensity—it is right that those operating in the most arduous conditions are given respite when they need it. We keep our force levels under constant review, depending on the operational requirement, and I have been reassured by commanders on the ground and at the top of our armed services that we have the manpower we need for the current operations.
	I spoke with President Karzai yesterday. He expressed his condolences at the loss of precious lives in Helmand, and I urged him to make available this summer—in addition to the 500 already involved in Panther's Claw—more Afghan army personnel for operations in Helmand, so that our hard-won gains can be fully consolidated.
	Our troops will continue to face a tough and dangerous battle, and we will continue to give their safety the highest priority. Since 2006-07, we have increased funding for the Afghan operation year on year, from the Treasury reserve and in addition to the defence budget, from £700 million in 2006-07; to £1.5 billion in 2007-08; to £2.6 billion in 2008-09; and to more than £3 billion this year—over and above the defence budget of £30 billion. The Chancellor has made it clear that all operational requirements will be met.
	In the last two years, we have increased helicopter numbers by 60 per cent. and because we have provided more crews and equipment we have increased capability by 84 per cent. Since 2006, we have spent more than £1 billion in urgent operational requirements for vehicles, including 280 Mastiffs, which offer world-leading protection against mines and roadside bombs. We will go further this year with the deployment of the new Ridgeback vehicles and Merlin helicopters. We have also just agreed a £100 million programme for the upgrading of Chinook helicopters.
	The Chief of the Defence Staff has said that
	"the British armed forces are better equipped today than they have been at any time in 40 years".
	But we are not complacent. Our troops operate in a dynamic, ever-changing environment. This Government, and our military commanders, recognise the need to adapt as conditions develop.
	Despite the tragic losses of the last two weeks, our commanders assure me that we are having a major impact on the Taliban in central Helmand and that morale among our forces is high. Our brave servicemen and women know that taking the fight to the enemy as they are now doing, to prevent terrorism on the streets of Britain, will inevitably put them in harm's way. The majority of recent casualties have been sustained not in direct confrontation with the insurgency, but from improvised explosive devices, and from April we have begun to deploy additional units to tackle this growing threat.
	As I made clear in April when I announced for the period of the Afghan elections a temporary uplift to around 9,000 through the summer, we will review that commitment after the Afghan elections, with the advice of our commanders and in discussion with our allies. At the same time we will continue to strengthen our approach in the ways set out in our April strategy: by better continuity of our campaigns; by further improvements in civilian-military integration; by the closest possible co-ordination with American forces; and above all by a gradual shift towards training and mentoring of the Afghan army and police so that they can take more responsibility for what is happening in Afghanistan.
	At the G8 meeting, all members agreed on the importance of the work now being done in Afghanistan, and I talked directly with President Obama about the challenges we will face together. It has been a very difficult summer, and it is not over yet, but if we are to deny Helmand to the Taliban in the long term and if we are to defeat this vicious insurgency—and by doing so make Britain and the world a safer place—we must persist with our operations in Afghanistan. I am confident that we are right to be in Afghanistan, that we have the strongest possible plan, and that we have the resources we need to do the job.
	Let me turn to other matters raised at the G8 summit. The summit will be remembered as the climate change summit where we achieved real progress towards our goal of reaching a global climate change agreement at Copenhagen in December. First the G8 and then the major economies forum concluded that average global temperatures must rise by no more than 2°. That is an unprecedented and universal agreement, taking in developed and developing countries alike. It reflects a worldwide consensus unthinkable only a few years ago that the scientific evidence for climate change is irrefutable, and all of us now have a duty to act.
	The summit agreed that developing countries will contribute to a global agreement by undertaking actions promptly
	"whose projected effects on emissions represent a meaningful deviation from business as usual in the"
	medium term; that
	"Financial resources for mitigation and adaptation will need to be scaled up urgently and substantially and should involve mobilising resources to support developing countries";
	and that, to take this forward, G20 Finance Ministers should work on it further and should consider the proposals that the British Government have set out, including the Mexican green fund, and report back at the Pittsburgh summit of the G20 in September.
	For the first time, the G8 countries agreed the goal of reducing their emissions by 80 per cent. or more by 2050 as part of a global goal of at least a 50 per cent. reduction in emissions, and we will also undertake
	"robust aggregate and individual mid-term reductions."
	These are the most ambitious targets on climate change ever agreed by the G8.
	The summit also sent out a second wake-up call on the world economy. We reaffirmed the commitments made at the G20 to take
	"all necessary steps to support demand, restore growth and maintain financial stability".
	We pledged "to implement swiftly" these measures and called on
	"all countries to act decisively to reinforce the international economic and financial system."
	In advance of the next G20 meeting, which will take place in Pittsburgh this September, the summit laid the foundations for a new strategy to
	"lead the global economy to stable, balanced and sustainable growth"
	by acting "individually and collectively". We agreed to
	"vigorously pursue the work necessary to ensure global financial stability",
	that there must be more bank lending, that reform and funding of the financial institutions should be secure and that there should be fast progress on regulation of financial services worldwide. We agreed to do what is necessary to make progress on growth, on commodity prices and on trade. We reaffirmed our commitment to a green recovery by
	"investing in measures encouraging the creation of"
	jobs in environmental technologies.
	On development, we agreed that the global recession is no excuse for abandoning our commitments to the poorest, so we reaffirmed our ambitious pledges to increase aid to Africa by $25 billion and by $50 billion globally by 2010. The G8 also agreed a global consensus what we have to do to accelerate progress on maternal and child health and on the millennium development goals on which, historically, we have made the least progress to date. In meeting with leading African nations, President Obama, I and other leaders agreed decisive action on food security to avert the hunger emergency. There is to be a $20 billion programme of assistance over three years to support the agricultural sector in poorer countries and I am pleased to say that the United Kingdom will contribute $1.8 billion to the initiative.
	The G8 leaders also issued a strong statement on non-proliferation. We welcomed President Obama's proposal to hold a non-proliferation conference in America next March, before the negotiations on the review of the non-proliferation treaty begin, and we will set out soon our proposals to prepare for that summit in 2010. We said that if Iran does not respond to the international community's offer of a supervised civil nuclear programme, we would put together a tougher programme of sanctions in the autumn. I welcome the solidarity shown by our G8 partners, who agreed that
	"embassies in Iran must be permitted to exercise their functions effectively...without arbitrary restrictions on, or intimidation of, their staff"
	and that
	"unjustified detentions of journalists and recent arrests of foreign nationals are unacceptable."
	On Burma, we reiterated our support to do all that we can to secure the release of Aung San Suu Kyi.
	We also discussed the measures that we must take to address the pandemic of swine flu.
	In the coming months, there will be crucial summits: on the global economy in Pittsburgh; on climate change at Copenhagen; and on non-proliferation in New York. If those meetings are to secure lasting change, now is the time for global leadership, to build a new strategy to deliver global growth, to face up to our obligations on climate change and poverty and to face down those who would threaten our global security.
	The G8 has laid foundations for such progress, and once again I believe that Britain has played a pivotal leadership role. I commend this statement to the House.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the eight servicemen killed since last Wednesday: from the 2nd Battalion the Rifles, Corporal Jonathan Horne and Riflemen William Aldridge, James Backhouse, Joseph Murphy and Daniel Simpson; from the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, Corporal Lee Scott; from the Prince of Wales Royal Regiment, Private John Brackpool; and from the 4th Battalion the Rifles, Rifleman Daniel Hume. They died serving our country. We must look after their families. We must thank them for what they have done, and we must never forget what they have done for our country.
	Everyone serving in Afghanistan should know that they have the support and admiration of hon. Members on both sides of the House and the whole country. Does the Prime Minister agree that more needs to be done to set out and explain the right strategy in Afghanistan? It must be tightly defined, hard-headed and realistic. As he said, we need to be absolutely clear about what our mission should be: it is about security; it is to deny the ability of al-Qaeda to have bases in Afghanistan.
	On equipment, the Prime Minister talks about the increase in helicopter capacity since 2006, but is not the real point that the number of troops has doubled since 2006, so, proportionately, there has not really been an increase in helicopter capacity at all? Does he regret the £1.4 billion cut in the helicopter programme that he, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, pushed through in 2004? Of course, helicopters alone are not enough and helicopters are not invulnerable, but the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie, has said very clearly that more helicopters would save lives, so does not more need to be done right now?
	On troop numbers, when the Prime Minister is asked whether military commanders requested 2,000 more troops, his response is always that 700 more troops are being provided for the election, but can he now answer the key question: was he asked for 2,000 more? If he turned down that request, can he explain the reason that he gave at the time? I listened very carefully to what he said in his statement:
	"I have been reassured by commanders on the ground and at the top of the armed services that we have the manpower that we need for the current operations."
	Those are clearly very carefully chosen words, but they raise the question of whether commanders asked for more troops to do more things, so that it would be easier to achieve the objectives that we all want to be achieved. I hope that he will be able to answer that question when he stands to speak again.
	On Pakistan, it is right that we have a combined strategy. Can he tell us how much aid is being delivered by British non-governmental organisations and the British Government in tribal areas, where it is extremely difficult to get through?
	On the Afghan national army, which the Prime Minister talked about in his statement, can he tell us not just how many troops are now available, but what agreements he achieved following his discussions with President Karzai? Figures suggest that less than 10 per cent. of Afghan forces are actually in Helmand province, even though almost half the fighting in Afghanistan is taking place in Helmand. Can he confirm those figures?
	On other issues discussed at the G8, I welcome what the Prime Minister said on non-proliferation. I very much agree with what he said about Iran. I welcome the fact that we will take a lead in drawing up EU sanctions if Iran does not take positive steps forward.
	Clearly, the central issues at the G8 were development, trade, climate change and the economy; let me ask briefly about each. On development, this morning we reaffirmed our commitment to 0.7 per cent. of gross national income to be spent on aid by 2013. I know that the Prime Minister will welcome cross-party agreement on that issue. Does he agree that it strengthens our ability to ask other countries to do more? Is it not the case specifically that Italy is cutting its aid budget this year and is planning to spend little over 0.1 per cent. of its national income on aid? Does that not make a mockery of the G8's Gleneagles commitments that were solemnly entered into four years ago? By next year, 2010, development aid was meant to have increased by $50 billion, with $25 billion of that going to Africa. Is it not the case that, four years on, countries are on track to meet around half of their commitments, and will that not sap people's faith in these meetings and the promises that are made?

Dennis Skinner: rose—

David Cameron: Sit down. I thought you said you were going to retire. I think that I hit a sensitive spot.
	On trade, the communiqué says that there needs to be agreement on Doha by the end of 2010, but two years ago we were told that we were going to get agreement on Doha by the end of 2007. Last year the Prime Minister told the House that progress would be made by the end of 2008. Again, we are getting the same message: progress will be made. Yes, elections in America and India are now over, so those stumbling blocks are being overcome, but can the Prime Minister tell us whether he sees real evidence of political will to make progress happen?
	On climate change, let it be said that getting agreements from all these countries on cuts in carbon emissions which are domestically painful is not easy, and the progress made at the G8 is very encouraging given the importance of the Copenhagen conference later this year. Is it not the case, though, that of the three things that were necessary, two have happened? First, every country committed to the 2° target, and secondly the G8 committed to the 80 per cent. goal for industrialised countries. However, is it not disappointing—and is not better to acknowledge this—that the wider group of countries did not commit to the 50 per cent. goal for the whole world? Does the Prime Minister agree that that highlights the need for interim targets before 2050 if we are to have any chance of getting those other countries on track?
	On the economy, the G8 discussed financial regulation, bank support for business and the need to get deficits under control. In each of those three areas is it not clear that Britain is failing badly? On financial regulation, will the Prime Minister finally take this opportunity to admit that the tripartite system that he established has failed? On bank lending, let us just take one scheme. Can the Prime Minister confirm that as of a week ago the automotive assistance programme, launched in a blaze of glory to help the car industry, had yet to guarantee a single loan? On deficits, will he confirm the IMF's finding that we are heading for the largest budget deficit not only in the G8 but in the entire G20? Is it not the case that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecast a deficit of 14 per cent.? That is twice as high as when Denis Healey went to the IMF in the 1970s, and by far the largest figure since the war. Does the Prime Minister not agree that the most important lesson this country needs to learn is that it should never allow the public finances and the budget deficit to get in such a mess again?

Gordon Brown: Let me start with Afghanistan. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the debt that we owe to our troops. Over the past weekend, which has been very difficult for our forces, I talked to the Chief of the Defence Staff, and I talked this morning to our commander on the ground in Afghanistan, Brigadier Tim Radford. I visited the Northwood joint headquarters to receive a briefing on Operation Panther's Claw, and this morning I visited RAF Benson to see the progress of the Merlin helicopter programme and talk to some of our very brave helicopter pilots who are in Afghanistan. Of course, I have also talked to President Obama about progress in Afghanistan, and yesterday to President Karzai, who I keep in regular touch with to talk about events in Afghanistan and what we can do.
	While we are not complacent and will always be vigilant, I have to tell the House that despite the terrible loss of some great soldiers, to whom we owe this huge debt of gratitude, our forces on the ground are making progress in Operation Panther's Claw, and have made it absolutely clear to us that they are moving ahead with some speed in clearing the ground. Behind them will come Afghan forces, whose numbers I want to see raised very substantially over the next few weeks. The civilian effort led by Governor Mangal is in place. It is our hope not only to take the ground and to clear it, but to hold it, using both our own forces and Afghan forces. At the same time, there should be a civilian effort to make sure that the land is held and that people believe that they have a stake in the future.
	I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, despite his quotations from various people, that the British Army spokesman in Helmand province, Lieutenant-Colonel Nick Richardson, has repeated what has been said to me in private. He said publicly:
	"Absolutely we have the proper equipment. Our equipment is first rate and we have plenty of it. It's...about having a full range of equipment, people are being critical of vehicles, we have a full range of vehicles here that help provide the protection that soldiers need."
	He went on to say:
	"So everything from the vehicles to the personal protective equipment, whether it's body armour, helmets and also the weaponry, and also the specialist equipment, it's here, it's great...it works".
	I have to say, also, that when he was asked about helicopters, he said:
	"There's much speculation about helicopters and have we got enough. It's a sad fact that helicopters would not have saved the lives of the individuals last week. We've got to be...on the ground, we've got to be interacting with the population—you cannot conduct a war from a helicopter. So the equipment we have is very, very good. In terms of would we like more, any commander will say yes, we'd like more. Yes, we'd like more equipment and we'd like more troops, whatever it may be, but my commander is very hard over on the fact that he has sufficient to get on with the task...which he has been given."
	I hope that the information that comes from people on the ground who are working in Afghanistan is taken on board by the House in this debate.
	We have increased the number of helicopters by 60 per cent. in less than two years. Because we have more crews and because we have made adjustments to those helicopters, we have increased the capability of those helicopters—in other words, the flying hours that they can do—by 84 per cent. By the end of this year, the Merlin helicopters, which I saw this morning when I visited RAF Benson, will be on the ground in Afghanistan. In addition, we contract from NATO a lot of helicopters that do the work of getting our equipment on to the ground. We have created a helicopter fund, so that we and other people can contribute to countries that will provide helicopters, and we will pay for them to be upgraded. That will create 11 helicopters over the next period of time. We are working very closely with the United States of America on those issues, and of course we have set aside £6 billion for future investment, particularly in the new Lynx helicopter, over the next 10 years.
	I hope that Opposition Members who want to make an issue of the fact that there are insufficient helicopters will take it on board that while of course we would want more helicopters, there has been a 60 per cent. increase, and there will be more on the ground by the end of the year. In addition, of course, we are converting eight Chinooks to enable them to deal with the weather in Afghanistan. I have to say that to move helicopters from Iraq to Afghanistan is very difficult, because the weather in Afghanistan and the terrain on which people are operating are very difficult. The helicopters have to be converted. Our crews have got to be trained for the ground on which they are fighting. I believe that people appreciate that we are striving daily to have the best equipment available for our troops in Afghanistan.
	As for the numbers of troops, in our discussions with the military, of course one talks about all the options that are available, but let me just make it clear that we decided, after discussion with our military and with President Obama, that we would increase the number of troops from 8,100 at the point at which we discussed the matter to 9,000. There are today about 9,150 people on the ground in Afghanistan. I repeat that I have been reassured by commanders on the ground and at the top of the armed services that we have the manpower that we need for current operations. I have also said that once the elections are over, we will review the numbers with our allies and with our commanders on the ground.
	We have made our additions to the numbers in Afghanistan. We have persuaded some other countries to contribute more troops, but we are the second largest provider of troops for Afghanistan. We are far ahead of other countries, and we insist that there has got to be proper burden-sharing across NATO. I hope that every section of the House will want to support that.
	I repeat that in April we published our strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. We understand very clearly that we must have success in both countries if we are to be able to deal with the problem of terrorism. We also understand that military action alone, although vital, is not sufficient. We need action on the ground with development aid, and we need to train local people to take responsibility for security in their areas. Our strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan is to tackle the terrorist threat. We are now in a position where the Pakistan Government are taking action in the Swat and in Waziristan, and progress is being made in the Swat valley.
	Therefore, we have a complementary strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan to tackle the terrorist threat, to strengthen local forces on the ground, to bring development help to these areas, and in Afghanistan to tackle the heroin trade that is so costly not only in Afghanistan, but around the world. That is the strategy that we are pursuing with our American allies and with 40 other allies in the region, who are contributing to the effort.
	I repeat that there needs to be burden sharing not just in troops, but in development. We are contributing a substantial amount of development aid both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. We have shifted aid from the other areas of Pakistan to the north-west area. We are determined to do more in those areas to help young people to go to school, for example, and to make sure that the internally displaced people in Pakistan have homes that they can go to and proper services.
	I come to the other issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition. It is precisely because we must meet our commitments on development aid that we, the British Government, have issued a call to action. We have asked other countries to join us in realising the poverty emergency that exists and what we have to do.
	Let me be clear that the reason that we could not get an agreement on trade in 2008 was that the Indians and the Americans could not come to an agreement on what was called a very specific safeguard clause for Indian imports. I believe that that barrier is being removed. That is why I believe that there is hope that the new trade negotiations that will start will have greater success. Trade Ministers have been asked to meet before the Pittsburgh summit in 2010.
	On climate change, the right hon. Gentleman knows that our policy is not only long-term targets and that there must be help for developing countries; interim targets must be agreed as well. That is what we will be discussing at the Pittsburgh summit, then at the United Nations, and then on the road to Copenhagen in December.
	On the economy, I repeat that it is because we have succeeded in getting global action, partly at the G20 meetings in Washington and London, and partly at the G8 meeting that we have just had, that the world has a shared policy to deal with the recession. It is to create financial stability. The Americans are proposing a similar arrangement to the one that we have—the regulators, the central Bank and the Government work together. That is precisely what the Americans are proposing to do. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that no financial policy in future can work unless the Treasury, the Bank of England and the financial regulatory authorities work together. To my knowledge, no country that was at the G8 shares the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to cut public spending at a time when people need it, and to fail to support a recovery.

Nicholas Clegg: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and join him in paying tribute to Corporal Jonathan Horne, Rifleman William Aldridge, Rifleman James Backhouse, Rifleman Joseph Murphy and Rifleman Daniel Simpson, all of the 2nd Battalion the Rifles, Private John Brackpool of 1st Battalion the Welsh Guards, Corporal Lee Scott of 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, and Rifleman Daniel Hume of 4th Battalion the Rifles. This is a heartbreaking roll call of losses, including many young men who displayed courage and a professionalism well beyond their years. We all owe them a great deal.
	I believe that the British people are resilient and understand the sacrifices that are inevitable in conflict, as long as the purpose of that conflict is clearly explained and understood, but how can people understand the true nature of this war when the Government have refused to explain what the achievable aims of the mission really are? For the past eight years, the Government have been sending mixed signals about the nature and purpose of the deployment. In the past week we have had the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary giving different justifications for the war.
	We on the Liberal Democrat Benches support the Afghan mission to stabilise Afghanistan and to reduce the threat of terrorism to British citizens. However, we need to be very clear about the limits of what we can achieve. Military action may be able to contain problems but not resolve them.
	We have learned some difficult lessons in the past eight years. We have learned that our forces were not in a position to secure Helmand province alone, given the chronic shortages of equipment and manpower. We have learned that, because of the nature of Afghan tribal society, we must not overreach ourselves by trying to import overnight a western-style liberal democracy to a country that has never had a functioning central Government.
	Does the Prime Minister now accept that, at best, what we can do is stabilise Afghanistan to provide a space for the state to grow? Does he see that, since our troops first stepped into Afghanistan, the Government's strategy has been over-ambitious in aim and under-resourced in practice? Is not it time to commit the necessary resources and to set a reasonable goal? When exactly—he still has not answered this question today—will he find a way to send the desperately needed helicopters to our troops on the ground?
	When will the Prime Minister seek full co-ordination of the international political strategy in Afghanistan? We know that President Karzai vetoed last year the appointment of a single, strong political figure to co-ordinate the international effort in Afghanistan, so will the Prime Minister prevail upon President Karzai or his successor to reverse that decision and to accept the appointment of a single senior figure with sufficient authority to bring together the piecemeal strategies of the international community?
	Finally, I should like to turn to the G8 summit conclusions on nuclear non-proliferation. It is likely that conflicts such as Afghanistan will dominate in the coming years, rather than the old, state-to-state conflicts of the cold war era, so I welcome the position—the strong line—taken at the G8 on nuclear non-proliferation and the 2010 non-proliferation talks. However, does the Prime Minister not agree that rushing to commit Britain to like-for-like replacement of the cold war era Trident system hardly puts us at the forefront of such efforts? Is not it time both to admit that we do not need and cannot afford Trident on that scale, and to start to look properly at the alternatives, so that we can then commit the resources needed to our brave troops on the ground in Afghanistan and elsewhere?

Gordon Brown: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that what I set out as our Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy is very similar to what he asks us to do: first, that military action has to be complemented by other actions; secondly, that we must get the Afghan people into a position where their troops and their police are able to take responsibility for law and order, justice and security in their own area; and, thirdly, that that must be matched by development aid. Our increase in development support for farming and the social and economic development of Afghanistan is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman wants to see.
	Our strategy is very clear: to deal with a terrorist threat that could affect the streets of our own country, we have to take pre-emptive action to deal with terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In 2001, al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan and was pushed out into Pakistan, but in 2009 we have the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda in the mountainous areas on the borders of Pakistan. We have to see joint, co-ordinated action both in Pakistan to deal with the terrorist threat there, as is now happening, and in Afghanistan, where we are clearing areas and making it possible for free elections to take place. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that both our strategy and the way in which we are seeking to pursue it are in line with what he is suggesting.
	I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman, because I do not think that he heard what I said, that there has been a 60 per cent. increase in helicopters and an 84 per cent. increase in the capability of our helicopter forces. The Merlin helicopters from Iraq are being adapted so that they can be brought to Afghanistan as quickly as possible; we set up a helicopter fund to allow other countries to contribute helicopters, to upgrade them for the terrain in Afghanistan and to contribute to that development effort; and, of course, we are working with the Americans, who have helicopters, too, so that we can share the use of that particular equipment. I hope that he will agree also that the £6 billion that we are investing in helicopters is something that all of us can support.
	On development in Afghanistan, I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that General McChrystal is head of ISAF and the US operations, so there is now the co-ordination that before there was not. Kay Eide is the head of the development operation. Of course we want development projects to move a lot quicker, and of course I keep pressing President Karzai to ensure that his Government take direct action to ensure that that happens. However, 6 million Afghan children are at school who were not at school previously, and there are huge increases in the amount of health care available to the Afghan people. I caution the right hon. Gentleman: the support for the Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy is common to America and the 41 nations that are part of the coalition. We all have the same objective: to reduce and remove the terrorist threat by supporting the development of local control in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
	Let me say this to the right hon. Gentleman about the non-proliferation treaty. What we want to achieve is in the spirit of the original non-proliferation treaty. We offer to non-nuclear states the chance of civil nuclear power under conditions in which the transfer of that power to those states can be safe. At the same time, we secure an agreement that they will not adopt nuclear weapons. Furthermore, unlike in the case of Iran, the duty of those countries will be to show that they are not proliferating nuclear weapons, rather than our duty being to prove that by our investigations. I hope that there will be major progress on the non-proliferation treaty.
	As for Trident, let me be clear. We need collective action for disarmament involving all the nuclear states, and that is also one of the promises of the non-proliferation treaty. At a time when North Korea and Iran are developing nuclear weapons and other countries in the Gulf are threatening to do so, people would find it strange for Britain—a country that has nuclear weapons—simply to surrender hers unilaterally at the moment.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned development. All of us support Britain's leadership in providing international development to the poorest countries of the world. That leadership is important to the House.

Gordon Brown: The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee is absolutely right that we have to act urgently to deal with the climate change problem. That is why it was progress that every country present accepted the scientific evidence and accepted for the first time that we had to avoid an average increase of 2° C. That is also why the developed countries have agreed an 80 per cent. target for carbon reductions.
	I hope that we can go forward from this G8 summit and meeting of the major economies to get an agreement on climate change at Copenhagen. If we can do that, we can go further and secure an agreement on nuclear disarmament during discussions on the non-proliferation treaty, to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world. I believe that we will prove that collective action can work around the world, with international co-ordination to deal with the problems of our economy and of security. Copenhagen is vital not only for climate change but for showing how the world can act together.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Gordon Brown: First, let me say about those serving in Afghanistan that we owe them a huge debt. These are very difficult times. Operation Panther's Claw was never going to be easy. This is an important summer not just for Afghanistan but for the security of the whole region. We are therefore indebted to those who are making the sacrifice and giving service not only in Operation Panther's Claw but throughout Afghanistan.
	As for climate change, over the past few years there has been a rise in temperatures from the trough—

Gordon Brown: Probably by more than 1° C. At the same time, we want to prevent a situation whereby the rise is above 2° C. All the expert predictions that we have seen suggest that by the year 2100, without taking action, the rise in temperatures would be in the order of 6 per cent., which would make it very difficult for some countries to be able to survive in the way that they are doing at the moment. The need for action is urgent, and the agreement that we should recognise this as a problem is worldwide. The question is whether we can get an agreement at Copenhagen, and I hope that we can all strive to do that as quickly as possible.

David Winnick: I recognise that much—indeed, all—of the criticism that has been directed at my right hon. Friend over Afghanistan is unfair. Nevertheless, given that British troops—we all pay tribute to their bravery—have now been in Afghanistan for nearly eight years, which is obviously longer than the second world war, does he accept that it is legitimate, and certainly in no way unpatriotic, for people to ask whether our intervention is going to be indefinite, whether a British contingent will be there in another eight years or more, and what we mean, as such, by victory in the context of Afghanistan?

Patrick Mercer: The Prime Minister said that the hard-won gains in Afghanistan must be fully consolidated. People at my former battalion, 2 Mercian, talk to me all the time, and they say that there simply are not enough troops to hold the ground after the current operation. Notwithstanding his careful answers to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), can he confirm that troop numbers will not be drawn down after the election and, more to the point, that the ridiculous rumours about the axing of three infantry battalions are just that—rumours?

Gordon Brown: First, we have made progress in Afghanistan, and I disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. There are millions of children at school, health care services are being provided, there are roads and there is economic development as a result of what we have managed to do.
	Secondly, our aim, as we set out in April and as I said previously—the aim is now accepted by all our allies—is to complement our military intervention with action on the ground to help Afghanistan to build up its armed forces and police services, and to take action that is necessary for the development of Afghanistan so that the Afghan people have a stake in the future. As I have said, military action alone will be insufficient to bring Afghanistan to a point where we can justifiably say that we have dealt with the terrorist threat. It demands action by the Afghan people themselves, and that means training their own armed forces and police.

Dennis Skinner: Did my right hon. Friend remind the other leaders, when they were discussing the recession at the G8 meeting, that he had had a little bit of practice because on 16 September 1992, we had a terrible day, Black Wednesday? The economic adviser to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer is sitting over there—the Leader of the Opposition. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reason that I can remember all this is that I did not have a wasted youth, going to Eton and being educated beyond my intelligence, and I am drug-free?

William Cash: The Prime Minister knows that millions of little children die from bad water and bad sanitation. He did not mention that in his statement. Will he be good enough to consider the problem that arises through duplication between the G8-Africa partnership and the global framework that is being set up—as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Mr. Tony Blair, said he would do at the next G8—so that we have positive movement and progress on water and sanitation?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Some £20 billion will be invested in nuclear power over the next few years. We want to see nuclear power moving forward— [ Interruption. ] This is very interesting. The Opposition have spent a long time saying that they were hostile to nuclear power, but now I am asked, "When is the first planning application?" We will publish our planning statement on nuclear power in due course. It would be sensible in our country to have a cross-party consensus on the need for a balanced energy policy, and I hope that that will not long elude us.

Keith Vaz: If the Prime Minister looks at the development conclusions, I hope that he will consider countries such as Yemen—the country where I was born—which is 155th out of 177 countries on the poverty index and where half the population live on less than £1.25 a day. We have had many G8s and G20s over the past 10 years. How is this one going to help the people of Yemen?

Gordon Brown: First, because where there is hunger we want to act immediately, and the urgency of acting on hunger was understood by all countries. President Obama and other countries' leaders wanted to take that action immediately. Secondly, because we said that the millennium development goals to be met have to be properly accounted for, we have to look in the next year at how far we are from meeting those goals and assess that at the next G8 summit, which will be held in Canada. So, there was agreement not only that we had to secure value for money, but that we had to know how far we had got and what we had yet to do to meet the millennium development goals. I hope that that is not abstract, because it is important that countries deliver on the ground what they promise to the people of Yemen and elsewhere.

Paul Flynn: President Karzai has refused to reduce the 20-year sentence on a man sent to prison for accessing a document on the internet about human rights, yet he has given a full pardon to some young thugs who gang-raped a 13-year-old girl. Is it no wonder that Malalai Joya, a human rights award winner and Member of the Afghan Parliament, has said that human rights under Karzai are worse than under the Taliban? Also, is it right that we should ask our young men to put their lives at risk in support of Karzai's thuggish police and his mediaeval view of human rights?

Sammy Wilson: May I join in paying tribute to those who have lost their lives in fighting to protect our country in the mountains of Afghanistan? I urge the Prime Minister to ensure that sufficient resources and manpower are made available to them to do the job. Will he tell also me what assessment he has made of the impact of the climate change package on the public finances, on energy costs and on job losses in this country, especially given the fact that a number of important developing countries have refused to sign up to the targets?

Gordon Brown: First, it is going to be important that all countries sign up to a climate change deal at Copenhagen. We do not want to be in the position that we found ourselves in after Kyoto, in which some countries had signed up and others had not. It is important for the health of the world economy as well as for action on climate change that we persuade the developing countries to join. Secondly, I regard the climate change challenge and the carbon reduction challenge as something that can create jobs and make it possible for our economy to do well in selling to the rest of the world. We believe that, in five years' time—10 years' time is probably the better figure to give—there will be more than 1 million people employed in green jobs and carbon-related jobs. I believe that this could be a major provider of wealth for the British economy. If we can get the technology right and sell it to the rest of the world, and create jobs as a result of that, the carbon challenge will be one that we can meet successfully in our own interests as well as in the interests of the world.

Gordon Brown: I have been very clear about what we are doing in Afghanistan. We are trying to take ground, to hold that ground and to make that ground safe for a democracy and for the provision of services to the Afghan people. The exercise, Panther's Claw, which is being carried out at the moment, has the resources that are necessary and is making real advances. As for what happens after the election period, I have already made it clear that there will be discussions with America—which is reviewing its strategy and has agreed that it will have a review after the Afghan elections—and that we will be part of that reconsideration.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we are asking companies to consider moving into green, low-carbon technologies, and we have to make it possible for them to get the necessary investment to make that happen. In the past two weeks, we have set up the innovation fund, which will enable companies with low-carbon technology innovations to apply for help. We estimate that, along with the £150 million that we are investing, about £1 billion of private investment will come forward. Any company in my hon. Friend's constituency or elsewhere in the country that wishes to see investment in low-carbon technology and believes that it can benefit from the innovation fund should apply for that support. This is how we can develop the new technologies that we can sell to the world, and the jobs that are essential for the future.

Gordon Brown: Estonia and Denmark are working with the United States and Britain in Helmand. Countries present at the NATO summit pledged, I believe, 5,000 more troops for the election period. We set up the helicopter fund, which I think is now £13 million, and countries such as ourselves and France are contributing, while there are, of course, some countries that are prepared to use the helicopter capability, but do not have the resources to make the adjustments necessary for Afghanistan. The hon. Gentleman will know that France has sent just under 1,000 extra troops over the last few months.

Mark Durkan: First, I join others in offering my condolences to the families and friends of the soldiers killed in Afghanistan—the genuine concern at the high human cost of that engagement is sometimes debased by cheap political commentary. On the substance of the Prime Minister's statement, he said that the leaders of the G8 agreed to do what it takes to make progress on growth, commodity prices and trade. On commodity prices, does the Prime Minister believe that that will include curbing the ability of banks and other financial institutions in the future to speculate on commodity indices and futures in a way that drove price surges in food and fuel in the past?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on Afghanistan. As far as oil is concerned, yes, we are looking at what is happening in the oil commodities market at the moment. Prices have gone up by 75 per cent. over the last few weeks—oil was $35 a barrel and has risen to $75. It is probably down today, but oil price rises are very difficult for industry and people to accept if they lead to rising fuel bills. We are looking at what is happening in the marketplace and we will take any necessary regulatory measures.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people in this country think that the policy is Afghanistan is fundamentally misplaced, that it has done nothing to control the drugs trade, that it has probably increased support for the Taliban and will inevitably involve NATO and other forces crossing the border into Pakistan with further problems that will result from that? Is it not time for a complete rethink of the entire strategy?

Gordon Brown: I hope that my hon. Friend will look at the strategy that we announced in April and the way in which we have developed it over the past few months, and will note that President Obama in America is pursuing a course very similar to ours.
	The fact of the matter is—and we cannot ignore it—that three quarters of terrorist plots start in the mountainous and border areas around Pakistan. Before 2001, al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan; now it is based in Pakistan. If we are to make our streets safe in Britain, we must consider what is happening in those regions. That is why our strategy is not simply military, but is intended—alongside military action—to build up the Afghan forces, to develop the Afghan economy and, of course, to deal with the heroin trade in Afghanistan. I hope that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will recognise that people are safer in London because of the actions that we are taking in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Michael Wills: I beg to move,
	That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Political Parties and Elections Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by 15 weeks until 29 October 2009.
	The House will be aware that because this is a carry-over Bill, which was introduced on 17 July 2008, it will fall if it does not receive Royal Assent before 17 July 2009. It should receive Royal Assent before that date, or before the House rises for the recess at the very latest. However, it is only prudent for us to take precautions to ensure that it will endure in the event of parliamentary timetabling—which is always strained at this point in the Session—making it impossible for it to complete its passage within that time frame. The extension motion is intended to ensure that the life of the Bill—an important Bill that has spent some time in the House already—will continue beyond 17 July this year if that is necessary for the effective timetabling of parliamentary business. The motion in no way reflects any lessening of the Government's determination to put the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible—I hope that Members in all parts of the House will agree on that—but it is only right for us to make provision for all future possibilities.

Jonathan Djanogly: I think it fair to say that the Minister and I, and our respective teams, have come a long way with this marathon piece of legislation. What was a very weak and partisan Bill became—bit by bit, debate by debate, in both Houses—a Bill that I think we can broadly say was built on consensus. I am afraid, however, that that seems no longer to be the case. Given that we received the Minister's amendments only today, no one has yet been able to give proper and full consideration to the impact of clause 8 in its amended state. The Bill contains complicated clauses with significant underlying issues and complex tax implications. As it happens, we think that these provisions still have serious flaws and weaknesses, but that apart, from a procedural point of view, this is no way to make law.
	In the other place, the Minister, Lord Bach, said most stridently that he was against what was then called the Campbell-Savours amendment and that it was "unrealistic and cannot work", yet here we are just one month later with the Government accepting the amendment in principle. The Minister needs to explain why this U-turn came about. Have the Government really become so weak that they have to introduce a series of major amendments to our electoral law just a few hours before they are debated? Frankly, this is outrageous. The Bill has been passing through Parliament for more than 18 months and it is unacceptable that this issue could not have been dealt with earlier within one of the two Houses.
	The Government have consistently maintained that they want this Bill—the Minister just did so once again. They want it as a revision of electoral law and party funding, and they also want proceedings on it to be conducted in a consensual manner—and for the most part, after the revision of the overly partisan initial Bill, that has been the case. I should take this opportunity to acknowledge the usual spirit of co-operation that we have enjoyed with the Secretary of State and his Minister. However, it is totally unacceptable for them to come here today and announce this major change of policy, which I first saw only in Saturday's edition of  The Guardian, and then to throw six pages of complicated amendments at us this morning. This is no way to behave; this is no way to act like a responsible Government.
	What we are seeing here is the dying embers of a rudderless Government who have once again failed to control their Back Benchers. The reality of this situation is that it is a problem for the Government, not for us. So let me make it very clear that this Bill no longer carries cross-party support. Our position now is that the Government should take this Bill away, rethink it and come back in the next Session with a new Bill that we can debate properly. A significant number of knock-on issues emanate from this, and we need to think them through carefully. For these reasons, we will be asking the House to divide on this carry-over motion, and I recommend that my hon. Friends vote against its extension.

David Howarth: As the Minister said, Standing Order No. 80A(13) provides for carry-overs to last only one year, and that year comes to an end on 17 July, hence the need for an extension motion under Standing Order No. 80A(14).
	The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said that the Bill no longer carried consensus because of the Government's concessions on the clauses to do with tax exile donors. On the substance of that matter, I welcome very much the Government's concession and, as far as we are concerned, this increases, not decreases, the degree of consensus on the Bill. However, I do share the hon. Gentleman's concern over the process. This is now quite a short and insignificant Bill that has taken more than a year to get to its current state, but our debates on it have repeatedly been cut short. As a result, in the debates in Committee and on Report, only one of all the Hayden Phillips proposals that Liberal Democrat Members were proposing ever got to a vote. The Government constantly said there was not enough time to debate very important issues. In fact, on Report we ran out of time and could not discuss properly the very issue the hon. Member for Huntingdon has raised. For the Government to come forward at this stage with a carry-over motion on the grounds that we are running out of time, and on that very morning to table new and serious—even though very welcome—amendments strikes me as an abuse of process.
	I want these clauses to work, but we have not had time to consider them in the depth that they deserve. I am concerned whether they will properly cover the devices that donors enter into to avoid being captured by the law—but I shall say more about that later. Those of us who might have had legitimate amendments to suggest to the Government's proposals have had no time to table them. The only thing that we can do is suggest manuscript amendments, and that is far from the proper procedure. As a member of the prospective committee on procedure to be chaired by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), I will raise this matter elsewhere.
	The Government should be given a strict deadline to get this Bill through. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), I do not think that that deadline can possibly be 29 October, because by then it will be too late to implement the Bill. If there were to be an extension of the carry-over, it should not go beyond 21 July. With great reluctance—because I strongly support the Government's concession on the major issue before us—I will advise my hon. Friends to oppose the carry-over extension.

Alan Reid: My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) is right in his criticism of the process that this Bill has gone through. Procedurally, it has been a shambles. I served on the Committee and vast rafts of amendments were not debated. I sat here through the entire Report stage and, again, rafts of amendments were not considered. I tried to speak on Third Reading, but we ran out of time. There have also been huge gaps between different stages of the Bill.
	My concern about the carry-over motion is that it specifies 29 October. I know that the Minister, in response to my intervention, said that the Government's intention was to get the Bill on the statute book before the parliamentary recess. In that case, why does not the motion simply give the last day before the parliamentary recess—21 July? Why does it specify 29 October?
	Clauses 14 and 15 introduce important new rules about election expenses that come into effect on 1 January 2010. Between Royal Assent and 1 January, the Electoral Commission has to conduct a consultation exercise and then issue guidance. The two months between 29 October and 1 January would not be long enough for that to happen. I would have been happy to vote for the motion had it specified 21 July, but as it says 29 October, I will oppose it.

John Redwood: It is a pity that the Government wish to rush through what could turn out to be a bungled and unsatisfactory piece of legislation. Given the problems that candidates for the deputy leadership of the Labour party got into under the law that the Government introduced before, one would have thought that the Government would have seen the need for simpler and clearer legislation and for more time to prepare it so that everyone could buy into it, understand it and comply with it. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members wished to comply with the earlier legislation, but they got into difficulties because it was complicated and not fully understood. That legislation had not been thought through or debated sufficiently so that all could grapple with its complexities.
	I have the same worry, only more so, about this Bill, because it has a troubled history. We now learn that consensus has broken down between the main parties on this issue, but the Bill requires consensus and agreement because it relates to the methods of election of people of all parties and none to this House. Surely it requires as much time as Parliament thinks it needs or deserves to try to reach sensible agreement. It is not satisfactory to have a whole set of new proposals put before the House at the last minute.
	I cannot understand why we need 80 days off this summer, but that is the Government's wish. If they are sticking with their 80 days off, there clearly is not time to do this Bill properly. They have an easy answer—they could put on another couple of days next week and get this thing done properly. I do not see the Minister rising to offer to do that. I find it very difficult to explain to constituents why there is not enough time to make our case or to do our job when we are then forced to take an 80-day break when some of us would be happy to work longer to see things through properly.
	If we must have this kind of legislation, the Government should let us have the time to debate it. Indeed, why cannot we go longer this week if colleagues already have holidays planned for next week? We could meet later on Wednesday or Thursday to accommodate the need to consider these measures carefully. I think that it is a great tragedy that the Minister will not rise from his seat and offer us that— [ Interruption. ] Does the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) want to intervene?

John Redwood: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was keen to disagree—I am delighted that I have the agreement of the Labour Back Benchers. They do not wish to intervene and tell me that I am wrong to want more time to discuss these matters. Please will the Minister reconsider, will he see that this has broken any chance of consensus and will he grant us more time? There is plenty of time this week or next week.

Bob Spink: I am not at all surprised that the Conservative party oppose the Bill. I want to see it come on to the statute book as soon as possible so that we can get more transparency on the funding of political parties and of elections in particular. I know that this Bill will cause problems for the Conservative party because it currently abuses the system. It acts in a way that the public perceive as totally improper in funding campaigns with tens of thousands of pounds even before the starting point of the election is reached. That is an abuse of the system. I want to see that stopped, and that is why I will be supporting the Government.

Graham Stuart: Did the hon. Gentleman also think that it was an abuse when the incumbent Government decided to add £10,000 on top of already generous allowances so that Labour MPs in particular, who have the majority here— [ Interruption. ]

Bob Spink: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall abide by your wishes and not be distracted away from the motion that we are discussing. I am astounded that the Conservative party, of all parties, should seek to raise today, in this debate, the question of the abuse of Members' allowances. What brass neck they have.
	I want to see the Bill brought forward and that is why I will be supporting the carry-over motion, although I want to see levels of reporting reduced to lower sums so that we have even greater transparency. I also want to see even greater restrictions on spending on elections. I do not want to see this country going down the same route as America on election funding.

Michael Wills: As always, we have had a very interesting little exchange on these matters, but the contributions from Opposition Members been unusually baffling and illogical. Of course, I agree with the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid). He is quite right that we need to get this done as quickly as possible, but the contributions that we have heard from both Opposition Front Benchers demonstrate exactly why we need to allow a little bit of time for the Opposition to get their act together.

Michael Wills: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I certainly would not want to cause any offence whatsoever, but if he had borne with me just a little, I would have explained precisely why the Opposition need to get their act together. I do not wish to cause him offence, but if he listens to me, I will explain exactly why I said that.
	These amendments were debated at some length in the other place. May I respectfully point out to Opposition Front Benchers that consensus is a matter not just of two Front-Bench teams reaching agreement, but of the whole House reaching agreement in so far as possible. We also need to take proper recognition of the sentiments in the other place.
	In the other place, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, a very large number of Conservative peers take the Conservative Whip—200 or so. I wonder whether he can remember how many of them voted against the amendments that the other place passed. I will remind him: it was 40. He will be aware that a significant number of Cross Benchers also voted in favour of the amendments. We have to take account of the sentiment of the other place, and I am surprised that Opposition Front Benchers do not wish to take account of that. We believe that it is right and proper to do so. We are conscious of the time frame. These issues have been debated. We think that there is sufficient time to debate that.
	I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) that we will have time in later debates to discuss the matter that he has raised, and I will do so in relation to the appropriate clauses.
	I am baffled by the contribution of the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth). On the one hand, he seems to be calling for a strict deadline to be imposed on the Bill; on the other hand, he has been vituperative in his criticism of us for not allowing sufficient time to discuss the Bill. As so often, I am afraid, the Liberal Democrats are facing both ways.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Political Parties and Elections Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 20 October 2008 (Political Parties and Elections Bill (Programme))—
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at this day's sitting at the moment of interruption.
	2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely Nos. 11, 12, 33 to 47, 50, 96 to 98, 105, 106, 1 to 8, 51 to 65, 99, 9, 10, 13, 28, 66 to 68, 14, 48, 49, 100 to 102, 104, 15 to 24, 103, 25 to 27, 69 to 92, 107, 29 to 32, 93 to 95.
	 Subsequent stages
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—( Mr. Wills.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 194.

Jack Straw: Before I deal with the substance of the amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether I would be allowed to put on record my deep shock and sorrow at the death of Lord Kingsland, of which I learned yesterday. I have recently had a great deal to do with Lord Kingsland, although I did not know him particularly well before that. I talked to him only last Thursday in the context of the Parliamentary Standards Bill. I know that I speak for all Labour Members in saying that everybody who dealt with him found him utterly delightful, courteous, and firm in his opinions but ready to concede that others have opinions. I would like to send my deepest condolences to his family and friends, and to his party.
	The amendments arise from those moved by Lord Campbell-Savours in the other place during a well-attended debate on 15 June. At that time—I had expressed this view in this House—the Government advised the other place to vote against amendments that would have had the effect of making donations impermissible unless the donors met standard conditions for a permissible donation and, in addition, were ordinarily resident and domiciled within the United Kingdom. My noble Friend Lord Bach spoke, at  Hansard column 914, about the Government's serious concerns about the amendments on what he described as "principled, practical and legal grounds", and set out the position of the Government. It is no great secret that that has indeed been the Government's position.
	No one, least of all myself, has a difficulty with the idea that those who make donations to political parties, like those who participate more widely, should have a clear and practical connection with our democracy, not just a technical one. The issue is not one of sentiment but about the matters to which my noble Friend referred in the other place.
	As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said a short while ago, we in this House have to take account of sentiment here, among all parties and on the Back Benches as well as the Front Benches, as well as sentiment in the other place. That does not mean that we simply accept every amendment that is moved, but two things were striking when the matter came before the other place. One was the extent of the alliance that led to the amendments tabled by Lord Campbell-Savours going through, and the other was the difficulty that both the Conservative and Labour Front-Bench teams, if I may say so, found in encouraging otherwise loyal party supporters into the Lobby.
	There has subsequently been a lot of discussion, and I understand the concern of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) about the short time in which the amendments were tabled. We sought to consider actively whether there was any basis on which we could accept the principle behind the Lords amendments. However, in producing our amendments we had to acknowledge that although Lord Campbell-Savours did his best with his amendments, which are found in Lords amendments 11 and 12 and in clause 9 of the Bill as it came out of the other place, they were completely technically unworkable and complicated. I think that Lord Campbell-Savours and his supporters in this place accept that.

David Drew: One of the things about which some of us on the Labour Benches feel strongest is the allegation that there has been no debate on these substantial and substantive issues. It is true that we did not have a debate about them in this place, much to the sadness of some of us on the Back Benches, but there has been forthright debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) about what many of us who believe in democracy want to do—outlaw those from abroad who wish to buy elections. That is why we thoroughly welcome the Government's change of heart.

Jack Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. Part of what concerned Lord Bach, other colleagues and I was ensuring some consistency between the regime for donations and that for more general participation in our system. As I said, the Government have decided that it is possible to accept the burden of the amendments, and I now want, if I may, to get some important points on the record, not least to take account of the point that the right hon. Member for Horsham made about the short time for tabling amendments.
	Lords amendments 11 and 12 refer to residence for the purposes of the Income Tax Act 2007, but residence is not appropriately or meaningfully defined. Part 14 simply sets out residence in certain specific cases. The amendments fail correctly to refer to the place where an individual is not domiciled. That risks casting unnecessary doubt on the way in which the provisions are supposed to work. The Government have therefore tabled amendments (a) to (f) in lieu of amendments 11 and 12.
	However, let me state from the outset that the amendments do not fully deal with the problems that the defects of the amendments in their current form cause. Should amendments (a) to (f) be agreed by the House today, the Government will table, when the Bill returns to another place, such further amendments as they consider necessary to put a fair and workable scheme in place. I am happy to make the drafts of those amendments available to members of other parties. I do not ask them to endorse them, but if they find it helpful to see them, it is our responsibility to provide them, and I happy to do that. I recognise the frustration about the time available.
	I also want to make it clear that any restriction on permissibility of donations—one of the major problems with the proposition—linked to an individual's taxation status would not currently be fully enforceable without further steps being taken. Should the amendments be agreed, we would want to discuss the implications carefully with the parties and the Electoral Commission before the new restriction came into force.
	Before describing the amendments in more detail, I briefly remind the House of the current structure relating to donations under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Under the system that that Act introduced, political parties are not permitted to accept what are called "impermissible" donations of above £200, although the Bill raises that threshold to £500. When a party receives a donation above the threshold, it must take "all reasonable steps" to verify that it has been received from a permissible source. If it receives a donation from an impermissible source, it is required to return it in 30 days. It is an offence not to do so. The party must also report receipt of any impermissible donation to the Electoral Commission. Additionally, if a party accepts an impermissible donation, the Electoral Commission may apply to a court to seek forfeiture of an amount equal to the donation.
	Amendment (a) would add to the existing requirement for an individual to be registered on an electoral register by requiring that a registered party may not accept a donation from an individual unless that person is resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled in the United Kingdom in the previous year. Colleagues will know that an individual's tax status—particularly their residence status—can change from year to year. It is therefore almost impossible to establish somebody's tax status, and particularly residence status, in the middle of a tax year. For that reason, we have alighted on the previous year, although we are open to arguments about whether that approach is correct.

Jack Straw: The same principle will apply to Scottish elections. I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's point, unless he is seeking to erect an iron curtain between us and Scotland.  [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) says that the hon. Gentleman wants to exclude English donations. I suspect that there is an element of that—perhaps he would have an ethnic test as well.

Pete Wishart: Just to clarify for the Secretary of State, the point is quite straightforward: the same principle that he is trying to apply to the rest of the UK should also apply to Scotland. If someone is not served by the Scottish Parliament—if they are not registered to vote and not domiciled in Scotland for the purposes of Scottish elections—why should they be able to influence or buy election results in Scottish elections?

Jack Straw: That is like suggesting that unless one is domiciled, resident, ordinarily resident and registered to vote in Blackburn, it is not possible— [ Interruption. ] Hang on, it is exactly the same— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) mentions his constituency. In fact, I do get donations from Ribble Valley, because that is where the people who have done really well move to. They cannot buy houses expensive enough in my constituency, but they carry on wishing to support me, and I am very happy to take their support, including their money.

Jack Straw: It is not trivialising it—in fact, someone might move, surprisingly enough, south across the border to Carlisle. Why on earth should they not be allowed to donate— [ Interruption. ]

Jack Straw: I will draw this exchange to a close, but just say that it illustrates that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) does not even concede the idea of a Union. He simply wants Scotland to be a foreign country. That is his business, but it is not where the majority of the Scots are on that matter, and it is certainly not where the majority of those who live in the United Kingdom are.
	On residence, we looked closely at whether the wording, which seeks to right the technical defects in Lords amendments 11 and 12, provides the right results. We would want to be sure in finalising the drafting of the relevant clauses that the overall approach was proportionate—a point that I was trying to reflect in my answer to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox). Domicile is a common-law concept. Our understanding is that large numbers of people may be non-domiciled in those terms, but still pay full UK income tax. If Lords amendments 11 and 12 were aimed not at such a category, but more at those who seek to restrict their tax liabilities through their residence or domicile status, we would need to think about whether amendment (a) should be revised with that aim in mind. We will certainly listen carefully to the debate today. Given that a person's right to freedom of association, as enshrined in article 11, is in play, we should not be complacent about the potential ECHR implications of any proposals in this area.
	One potential option to address that issue—it is only one option—would be to specify that recipients of donations would be required only to satisfy themselves as to an individual's taxation status for donations above £7,500, rather than the £500 threshold. The result would be that the restriction would target only those who donate significant sums of money—that is, amounts that require that the fact of the donation be made public. Anyone wanting to make a smaller contribution would not be subject to the new requirement, with the result that the proposal would not operate as an absolute bar on a potentially large category of donor. Also, setting the permissibility threshold in relation to taxation status only at the level of the amount at which donations must be reported to the Electoral Commission would plainly be much easier for political parties to operate.
	There is a consensus on that, and long may it continue. We have sought throughout to ensure that the changes made to the Bill take account of the impact that the regime for party funding has on the volunteers who staff our parties. Our very good officials and the Electoral Commission sometimes forget this, but as I have told them, our political parties are not staffed by career civil servants, but by volunteers. They are not paid and they do not get expenses; they do what they do because they believe in it. We need to honour them and respect that.

Nigel Evans: There seems to be a lot of thinking on the hoof here, and I am not sure how well thought through any of this is. However, the Lord Chancellor just mentioned the figure of £7,500. Is that in totality—that is, the amount that goes to the centre—or could an individual give £7,500 to 646 constituencies?

Jack Straw: Typically, those sums are aggregated over a year. If I am wrong, I will let the hon. Gentleman and the House know, but the limits cannot easily be evaded, so that if the limit is £7,500, it is £7,500 given by one donor in any one year to a party.

Bob Spink: I recall that when we debated the Bill a few months ago, I argued that even £500 was too liberal and too high a limit for reporting. Surely the Secretary of State cannot now be arguing that £7,500 is the right level or that it is an amount that volunteers might give to the party without having a personal agenda of seeking to influence policy or buy elections.

Jack Straw: We are seeking to deal with the issue of proportionality. My view is that setting the minimum limit at £7,500 will deal with the issues that were of concern, as it turned out, to Members on almost all sides in the other place, without imposing an unnecessarily stringent burden on individual parties that is difficult to enforce. The lower the limit, the greater would be the likelihood of administrative headaches for parties, and the greater the risk of potentially damaging mistakes. That is where I am coming from on this issue.
	May I also say to the hon. Gentleman that, at the moment, what a local party treasurer has to do is relatively straightforward? They simply need to check that the person in question is registered to vote or, in the case of a company, to check that it is registered in this country. Even in that context, there was a complaint against my party and, therefore, indirectly against me, although the Electoral Commission did not find that we had acted dishonestly or dishonourably in any way. An error was made by my party treasurer, and such errors are made by others as well.
	The inherent difficulty—there is nothing that we can do about this—is that, at the moment, the information that a treasurer needs to check is on a public record. They need to check whether someone is on the electoral register. Having established someone's identity, it is relatively straightforward to check whether they are on the electoral register or the name of the company. People's tax records, however, are confidential to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Moreover, I recall that the Revenue holds tax records for only 9 million people, out of an adult population of about 40 million. It does not keep the other people's records. Why should it? Only about 9 million people complete an income tax return. The rest pay their taxes through the pay-as-you-earn system. There are overwhelming objections to providing access to the Revenue's database, but even if there were none, that database would not reveal whether someone was resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled in this country.
	The only way is to impose a requirement on the donor to self-declare. The party can then check that they have filled in that box. We are also looking actively at tabling amendments in the other place to ensure that, when a party treasurer has acted reasonably to check those things, they cannot then be found guilty of an offence, save in exceptional circumstances when there is evidence that they have been acting in collusion to perpetrate a fraud.

Jack Straw: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend, but the issue of proportionality— [ Interruption. ] I also apologise for my cough. The issue of proportionality affects all the parties. I have not been through every declaration made by all the parties, but, at the last election, as in previous ones, my party self-evidently declared donations above the declarable limit.

Jack Straw: The right hon. Gentleman should not always believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. In fact, that is not what I said, but let us leave that aside. It is perfectly plain that the Government position on this has changed, and I have sought to set out the reasons why.
	I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) that this is just about one party. It palpably is not, which is why I find the approach of the Conservative party slightly surprising. It is about trying to get a regime for party funding settled and straight. We have made a lot of progress on this, but we need to make a little more. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State made the point to the House—and, indirectly, to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude)—that, if the Conservatives had been that exercised about this matter in the other place, they might have ensured that rather more than 40 of their party's 200 Members there had turned up to vote. As I understand it, they were on a free vote for most of that evening. The truth is that a wide range of Cross Benchers, members of no party and others, voted for the amendment moved by Lord Campbell-Savours.

Jack Straw: Of course—not least so that I can have a cough.

John Redwood: I am pleased to give the Secretary of State an opportunity to sort out his cough; I hope that he will soon feel better. Will he tell the House the position in European law? Presumably, the Bill means that in European elections—and a European referendum, if we held one—no one could intervene to fund the campaigns from the continent, for example. That does not cause me any trouble, but I wonder how it squares with European law.

Jack Straw: I shall have to come back to the right hon. Gentleman on the question of European law, and I will do so. My recollection is that the same rules on donations apply to elections for the European Parliament as to any other elections, notwithstanding the fact that there is some difference in the franchise, as he will be well aware.
	The legislation governing donations to political parties and regulated donees in Northern Ireland rightly enables Irish citizens to make political donations to those parties and donees. We would not want to alter that arrangement, and the intention of subsection (b) of proposed new subsection (2ZA) is therefore to make clear our desire that Irish citizens will retain the ability to donate to political parties and other authorised recipients in Northern Ireland. The Government will table further amendments to clarify the intention underlying the subsection in due course.
	Amendment (a) would also insert new section 54B into the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That would require an individual making a donation above £7,500 in any given year to provide to the donee a declaration affirming that they satisfy the requirement to be resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled in the UK for tax purposes in the preceding year. That declaration requirement will sit alongside the requirement to provide a declaration as to the source of the donation, as required by proposed new section 54A of the 2000 Act.
	Amendments (b) to (f) are consequential amendments. They ensure that the permissibility and declaration requirements relating to residence, ordinary residence and domicile that I have described are carried through to regulated transactions such as loans, and to donations to other regulated donees under the 2000 Act—that is, regulated individuals such as MPs, members associations, third parties and permitted participants in a referendum.
	Any change to the requirements regarding permissibility of donors is significant, as parties are under a duty to comply with any new restriction. The current requirement for an individual to be registered on an electoral register offers a simple test. If the amendments were accepted, political parties and the Electoral Commission would need to be able to satisfy themselves that a donor met a new permissibility requirement. I have already explained the problems inherent in trying to ascertain someone's tax status.
	I note that the Electoral Commission, in its briefing ahead of these debates, has commented in detail on the difficulties of enforcing the permissibility requirement set out in Lords amendments 11 and 12. It commented on a particular effect of those amendments—that
	"in many cases it is likely to be difficult for the political party or regulated person who has received a donation to confirm whether the donor is permissible under the Bill's definition",
	or not. Other concerns were set out and the Electoral Commission ended by saying that the Government "should address these issues".

Jack Straw: It is a matter of record that the commission has said that its role is to apply the law in carrying out its regulatory remit and to advise Parliament and others whether the proposals for changes to the law are workable. It sets out its concerns on page 5 of the latest briefing. It goes on to state:
	"If Parliament wishes to change the test that the 2000 Act uses for the permissibility of individuals",
	it should address the issues raised in some detail, which we have sought to do in the amendments and will continue to do when the matter goes back to the other place.
	I have already set out the problems presented by the records of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs—as a result of the PAYE system, a large number of taxpayers simply do not have tax records, so there must be self-declaration.
	If the amendments are approved, it will take some time—I cannot provide an exact timetable—to ensure that regulations are brought in and guidance is established so that the provisions are workable and political parties, not least party workers at the local level, know where they are. Overall, I believe it is possible to make the sentiment behind these Lords amendments workable. That is what we have sought to do.

Geoffrey Cox: I hope that the House forgives me, but at the moment I am struggling to understand the rationale for the amendment. The Secretary of State has provided no justification for it. If someone is entitled to vote in a general election, what is the rational connection between participation in the tax system—someone might be abroad for a few years, working as an expatriate—and not being allowed to donate? If the Secretary of State would address that fundamental issue, I am sure that the House would be grateful.

Jack Straw: It is a matter of judgment, but all parties have stated their desire to see big money taken out of politics and to see foreign donations removed from politics. My starting preference was to get an examination in the round of the connection that was needed by people who were otherwise British citizens before they could participate to a greater degree in our politics —[Interruption.] I am responding to the hon. and learned Gentleman's point—by way of donations or standing for and sitting in Parliament. However, that was not to be. If the hon. and learned Gentleman looked at the contribution of Lord Neill of Bladen to the debate in the other place on 15 June, he would be struck that Lord Neill, who was the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which produced the original plan that fed into the 2000 Act, now says that he supports Lord Campbell-Savours' amendments. He voted for them and explained why in a short but powerful speech.
	I understand the argument that the hon. and learned Gentleman is making—it would be fair to say that I have made it myself—but the truth is that others not just of one party, but of all the parties and none, take a different view, which we have to take into account. I thus support amendments (a) to (f).

Jonathan Djanogly: May I first support the Secretary of State's kind words about Lord Kingsland, who was a truly fine gentleman? He was caring, charming and a good lawyer; he was always fair in debate and rational in his approach. I have always enjoyed working with Lord Kingsland, who will be sadly missed by colleagues. Our thoughts are with his family.
	We can see the outline purpose of the Government amendments on clause 8's permissible-donor provisions, but the fact remains that the clause will be extremely hard to implement. We feel that it could be unreasonable to impose requirements that are so difficult to meet, particularly when the consequences are so draconian. It may be an infringement of an individual's right to freedom of expression; it is most likely to be contrary to European law; it would contribute to the isolation of UK citizens living abroad; it is contrary to regulatory principles; and it links political rights to taxation. Furthermore, it does not correctly address a mischief that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 aimed to address—namely, a clarification of the rules on party donations.
	The Electoral Commission was concerned that those it regulates will not be able to comply with these proposals in their current form and that the resulting law will likely be unenforceable in practice. It has called on the Government to review clause 8, so the Minister might wish to report on the Commission's view in his reply.
	The change of Government policy over the past few days and the provision of these amendments only today are simply unacceptable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said, is it not true that only last Monday the Secretary of State told Labour Back Benchers that the Government proposed to impose a three-line Whip today to overturn these provisions? The Secretary of State said that that was not quite the case, but he did not answer my right hon. Friend's question about what had happened in the meantime. This is legislating on the hoof, and we do not much like it.

Jonathan Djanogly: The roundabout answer to that is no, but I shall explain why later in my remarks, at which point the hon. Gentleman might like to contribute again.
	Let me explain why we believe that these provisions will not work. The permissible-donor provisions would impose a three-prong test, which all political parties would have to perform before accepting any political donation. The first test—whether the donor is on the electoral register—was introduced precisely because it was straightforward and easy to implement and to check.
	When the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act was enacted, Parliament chose to use a formulation that would have included, in the category of permissible donors, individuals who were eligible to be on the electoral register—recognising the difficulties that any other formula would create. Registered parties are entitled to a free copy of the electoral register in hard copy or in electronic data from the relevant registration officer for the purposes of complying with the controls on donations. It is therefore relatively straightforward to check whether a donation is from a permissible donor under section 54(2)(a), as currently in force.
	The two further tests proposed, following the Lords amendments, are not quite so straightforward. The first test relates to residency. According to paragraph 2455 of the explanatory notes to part 14 of the Income Tax Act 2007—that gives some idea of the volume of our current tax legislation—
	"The question whether or not a person is UK resident is primarily to be determined in accordance with case law. A limited number of statutory rules either supplement or disapply the case law rules in specific circumstances."
	There is no statutory definition of "residence". The tests for residence are based on a mixture of legislative interpretation and case law. In addition, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has published guidance in HMRC 6 that outlines its view and interpretation of the legislation and case law, which is intended to help people to determine their residence status. There is no register of UK-resident individuals. It would therefore be necessary to provide individuals with information in an attempt to enable them to determine whether they are resident in the UK, and then to require them to make a declaration that they are resident at the time they make a donation.
	The Secretary of State quite properly mentioned the problems that treasurers would have in verifying residency details. In some circumstances, it may not be possible to establish with certainty whether a person is UK-resident on the date when he or she makes a donation. It is conceivable, albeit unlikely, that people could make a donation to a political party at a time when they believed themselves to be resident in the UK, but it could be determined at a later date that they were not. Such a situation might arise as a result of one of the different tests for determining a person's residence that are summarised in HMRC guidance, which may combine an individual's intention with average-day counting over a four-year period to determine whether the individual is UK-resident.
	Let me give an example. Those who spend 183 days or more in the UK in a tax year will always be treated as UK-resident. However, those who spend less than 183 days in the UK in a tax year but come to the UK with the intention of spending, on average, at least 91 days, and then spend an average of 91 days or more per tax year over a four-year period, will be treated as being UK-resident from the tax year in which they first came to the UK. If their intention fails and they leave the UK earlier than expected, they may not be treated as UK-resident from the date on which they first came to the UK. It would clearly be impossible to determine with certainty until the end of the four-year period whether a person should be treated as UK-resident according to that test, and that may affect the validity of a donation made to a political party during the period.
	Another question that might arise is whether there would be any tracing rules that would prevent non-domiciled or non-UK resident husbands or wives, for example, from giving their UK-resident and domiciled spouses money to donate to a political party. Has the Minister considered that issue?

Jonathan Djanogly: If, after what I have said, the hon. Gentleman will not accept that the individuals concerned, not being tax advisers, might themselves encounter practical difficulties in understanding all this, as a corporate lawyer he is not in touch with Joe Public. Furthermore, given that people's circumstances may change during the four-year period, his original statement may be wrong.
	The third prong of the test in the permissible-donor provisions is domicile, a notoriously slippery concept to anyone who has had to deal with or advise on it. Political parties will have to determine, in relation to every political donation, whether a person is a non-domiciled UK resident. HMRC recently issued new technical guidance on domicile, consisting of 42 pages. The introduction stresses the difficulties inherent in the determination of domicile. HMRC states:
	"It is vital to remember that domicile is primarily a matter of common law. The decisions of the courts in the UK and other jurisdictions provide a set of guiding principles, but each case will depend on its own facts".
	It also states:
	"As domicile depends on the facts of an individual's life, each case is unique."
	Many people will never have had cause to consider the question of where they are domiciled. In general, the only people who will have had cause to consider it will be those who are resident in the UK and who have substantial foreign income or gains in respect of which they would like to claim the remittance basis of taxation, or those who have been involved with certain family-law issues that may require their domicile to be considered. Such persons are likely to be confined to a relatively small proportion of the total number of individuals who have come from abroad and settled in the UK. It is therefore likely that not only would the vast majority of people never have considered the question of where they might be domiciled, but they would not be familiar with the test for determining domicile. As there is no register of UK-domiciled persons, the political party in receipt of a donation would probably need to ask the donor to make some form of declaration that he or she was so domiciled.
	Domicile is a general-law concept, and is therefore not defined in statute. Given that many people are likely to be unfamiliar with the general-law concept, it would be necessary to provide some form of guidance on what domicile means, and how people could determine where they were domiciled in order to make the relevant declaration. It is clear from the guidance notes published by HMRC that it is not necessarily straightforward to determine domicile in all cases, and it is arguably unreasonable to require political parties to make the complex and intrusive inquiries that they would have to make to ascertain whether a donor was non-domiciled.
	Let me explain the tax issues in slightly more detail. It is not absolutely clear what would be meant by income tax liabilities to be determined on the basis that the individual was domiciled. That applies more to the Government's latest amendments. Under current rules, an individual's income tax liabilities are affected by domicile only if the individual elects for the remittance basis of taxation. The election can only be made by non-domiciliaries, but can be made on a year-by-year basis. Is it intended that a resident non-domiciliary who has not elected for the remittance basis in the previous tax year should be eligible to donate, or are such people ineligible because they were non-domiciled although, for that year, they chose not to elect for the remittance basis of taxation? I think that the Minister ought to make that clear, as the issue is open to misrepresentation.

Jonathan Djanogly: Not in all contexts—absolutely not.
	Many non-domiciliaries—those with no significant foreign investments, who are likely to constitute the great majority—will not have given any thought to their domicile status. The only residual concern, if the restriction relates to an actual claim to the remittance basis, is that the claim does not need to be made until the individual files his tax return. That may not be until 31 January, following the end of the tax year which is 10 months through the donation year. The exception will be that many individuals will not take the decision until close to the filing date because they will need to calculate whether the election is to their advantage. They may not have the financial information to enable them to do that until some way through the year.
	There is, therefore, a clear possibility that an individual might make a donation in the expectation that they would not be claiming on the remittance basis, but at a later date decide to make a claim. Would a donation in that context have to be repaid? Would someone commit an offence in making a declaration that they expected to be true at the time it was made? Once they had made a donation, would they be prohibited from claiming on the remittance basis? If a declaration that is given in good faith is wrong or turns out to be incorrect, is the effect still that the party will have received a donation from an impermissible donor and the donation will therefore be subject to forfeiture?
	The party, however, will not be guilty of an offence even if the declaration was made in bad faith if it can show that reasonable steps were taken to verify that the donation was permissible and that the treasurer believed that the donation was permissible, assuming the defence in the Bill is passed. What is considered to be reasonable is likely to depend on the circumstances of the donation and the individual donor. For example, are there factors that might suggest residence outside the UK? A party may ask to see an individual's tax return.
	In addition to potential confidentiality issues, the clause might give rise to timing issues. Parties might have to consider repaying donations once a tax return is available making it clear that, contrary to previous expectations, the donor is not permissible. This might be one of the reasonable steps required. A check for Irish nationality might require sight of a passport. It is not clear whether that will be sufficient.

Nigel Evans: In my halcyon days, I was vice-chairman of the Conservative party, looking after Conservatives abroad. I wonder how that will work now, because we will be campaigning in places such as Marbella and Majorca to get people to register and participate in elections, but at the same time we will tell them, "For goodness' sake, don't you dare give any money whatever to reinforce your democratic rights that you will be following at the general election, because you will not be permissible."

Jonathan Djanogly: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I shall return to later. The provision will put off people who live abroad—regardless of why they want to live abroad—from becoming engaged in party politics. To that extent, it is an exclusive, rather than an inclusive, set of provisions, and a poor set for that reason.
	On the overall tax position, I have tried to explain that this is complicated stuff, as the Secretary of State also said. It is very poor and unacceptable that we were given these six pages of Government amendments only this morning and expected to come here and present on them in an expert and advised fashion. It seems that the Government amendments' broad impact is to tighten the residency test and introduce a declaration requirement for donors above £7,500. While the latter is certainly a move in the right direction, we still have many other concerns. As to the specifics of the amendments, however, there was no way that we could have had time to study them, so we will have to revisit them in the Lords.
	Returning to the principles behind the permissible donor provisions of clause 8, we believe that it is unreasonable to impose requirements that are so difficult to meet, especially when the consequences of not meeting them are so draconian. That point was also made by the Electoral Commission. The prohibition on the acceptance of impermissible donations and the duty to return any such donations within 30 days of receipt are subject to criminal and civil enforcement regimes. The party and the treasurer are guilty of an offence if the donation is not from a permissible donor and is not sent back to the donor within 30 days of receipt. The court has the power to order forfeiture of an amount equal to the donation.
	Section 56(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 provides that
	"all reasonable steps must be taken forthwith by or on behalf of the party to verify (or, so far as any of the following is not apparent, ascertain) the identity of the donor, whether he is a permissible donor, and (if that appears to be the case) all such details in respect of him as are required by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to be given in respect of the donor of a recordable donation."
	However, it is true that the Political Parties and Elections Bill provides
	"a defence to prove that—
	(a) all reasonable steps were taken by or on behalf of the party to verify (or ascertain) whether the donor was a permissible donor, and
	(b) as a result, the treasurer believed the donor to be a permissible donor."
	In view of the guidance from HMRC as to the complexity of the concepts of residence and domicile and the detailed inquiries that need to be made to ascertain the latter in particular, it is not clear what would constitute "reasonable steps" for these purposes. Primary legislation cannot be challenged on the grounds that it is unreasonable, but if it were considered unreasonable, that would support an argument that the provision was an infringement of human rights. I think that the Secretary of State acknowledged that earlier.

Martin Linton: Is not the problem that has led to the need for the amendment that the Conservative fundraising effort for many years has been directed not at people in this country, but at Spain, South Africa and Hong Kong? Is it not enough for the hon. Gentleman's party that people living in those countries should be able to give up to £7,500? People have often tried to give £1 million, £2 million or £3 million to the Conservative party. They will not be able to do so in future.

Jonathan Djanogly: I hope that hon. Members in general will agree that I am trying to advance a reasoned and considered argument, but if the hon. Gentleman just wants to make party political trashy remarks, he can do so; that is up to him. The answer, by the way, is no.
	We also think that the permissible donor provisions of clause 8 may be an infringement of an individual's right to freedom of expression, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox) suggested in his intervention. The case of Bowman  v. the United Kingdom of 1998 showed that the European Court of Human Rights would step in to protect the right to freedom of expression even in the case of UK primary legislation designed to regulate the conduct of elections. In that case, it was found that the spending limit on third parties, which was £5 at that time, imposed by section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 was an infringement of the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European convention on human rights.
	As that right is a qualified right, the Court went on to look at whether the spending restriction was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society. In considering the latter condition, the Court looked at whether the means employed were necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued. It found that the limit was not necessary or proportionate, and the UK Government subsequently amended the legislation to raise the limit.
	It is generally established that the right to give a political donation is part of the right to freedom of expression. Clearly the amendment would be a restriction on that right. A court would therefore have to look at whether the restriction was necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued. We cannot pass legislation that restricts an individual's freedom of expression, particularly when we have not been provided with any evidence on whether such a restriction would be necessary and, importantly, proportionate to the aim pursued.
	We must also consider the EU law implications of the amendment. According to article 18 of the Maastricht treaty, citizens have a right to move and reside freely within the territory of any of the member states, subject to the limitations and conditions contained in the EU treaty and secondary legislation. The European Court of Justice has defined Union citizenship as the "fundamental status" of Union citizens. Union citizens have a conditional right of residence, and a limited right to equal treatment.
	Article 19 of the treaty provides that Union citizens residing in a member state different from that of nationality have the right to vote, and to stand, in the local elections of the state where he or she is residing, under the same conditions as nationals of that state. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) elaborated on that point in his earlier intervention.
	It appears that the effect of the amendment, which would be to prohibit persons not resident or domiciled in the UK from making a political donation—and therefore possibly infringe their right to freedom of expression—could run counter to the basic principle of the free movement of people. That point was effectively expounded on by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon. Indeed, the Secretary of State referred to possible ECHR issues connected with the amendment.
	The next problem is that the permissible donor provisions of clause 8 do not correctly address the mischief that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 aimed to address—arguably it blows a hole through it. The "mischief" at which section 54 of the 2000 Act is aimed, is that of "foreign donations". There appeared, at the time the legislation was passed, to be particular concern about donations from foreign Governments and donations from individuals and persons who had no direct relationship or involvement with the United Kingdom.
	Section 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 permits overseas British citizens to vote in a parliamentary election if they are registered on an electoral roll, were resident at a UK address within the last 15 years and registered at that address or were too young to be registered but a parent or guardian was registered at that address. Therefore, the requirement in the 2000 Act that an individual be on the electoral roll already incorporates a test of connection, or involvement, with the United Kingdom.
	Proposing the amendment in the other place on 30 April, Lord Campbell-Savours quoted the Electoral Commission as saying:
	"The permissibility requirements in the 2000 Act are intended to ensure that only people and organisations with a close relationship to the UK can donate to political parties. It is for Parliament to decide if this is appropriate".
	He took that as support for the amendment. It can also be read, however, to support a test that relies on registration on the electoral roll, as that already requires a connection with the UK.

Nigel Evans: Let us envisage a happy scenario: we have a general election and the Conservative party wins it. We do not repeal this legislation—if it becomes law—and we then fulfil our manifesto commitment to give the people of the UK a vote on the Lisbon treaty, which they were promised but on which Tony Blair reneged. The Bill would prevent British residents who have lived abroad for 10 years from coming back to the UK to campaign actively in, or give money to a campaign on, that referendum. Is that correct?

Jonathan Djanogly: That could most certainly be the case, and that is a good example of some of the problems with the amendments and the underlying provisions.
	In the same debate in the other place, Lord Campbell-Savours said:
	"I had a conversation with the Justice Secretary Mr Jack Straw about the matters raised in the next paragraph and he raised exactly these issues with me. Paragraph 2 states:
	'The amendments would create an anomaly in rules regarding democratic participation. The amendments would allow a non-UK taxpayer to stand for election, collect and receive political donations, vote in elections and potentially sit in a democratically elected body. But the same individual would be barred from donating money—even to their own campaign. There is no coherent reason for this discrepancy'".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 2009; Vol. 710, c. GC143-4.]
	How nicely put. So why have the Government so fundamentally changed their mind on this issue? We agree that there is a question as to whether it is reasonable to allow someone to vote in an election, and even to stand in an election, but not to make a donation to the political party for which he or she is voting. That would tend to suggest that the purpose behind the amendment is not to provide greater protection against foreign influence, as a person who holds public office is intrinsically likely to wield greater influence than someone who gives a political donation.
	The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 introduced statutory principles to which persons exercising regulatory functions should have regard. While Parliament is not bound by those principles, it is arguable that, when making legislation that has a regulatory function, it should take them into account. The principles are set out in section 21(2) of that Act:
	"(2) Those principles are that—
	(a) regulatory activities should be carried out in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent;
	(b) regulatory activities should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed."
	Because of the difficulties that performing the new tests would entail, it is arguable that the proposals, even as now amended, would be disproportionate.
	The increased resources that political parties and the Electoral Commission will need to apply in order to meet the proposed new requirements will not have been considered in the impact assessment. Will the Minister now update the impact assessment before this returns to the other place? I hope that the answer to that is yes. The provision is also disproportionate to the aim of the original legislation, which is to impose restrictions on "foreign donations". Individuals who are on the electoral register have a connection with the United Kingdom, and therefore should not fall within the category of impermissible donors.
	The Electoral Commission has stated that if these permissible donor provisions are agreed in their current unamended form, those whom it regulates will be unable to comply with the resulting law, which is therefore unlikely to be enforceable in practice. The Electoral Commission is particularly concerned that the Bill does not provide donation recipients with a right to obtain reliable information—for example, from HM Revenue and Customs—about the donor's tax status. Whether its concerns have been addressed by the Government amendments is something that we will wish to consider carefully before this Bill returns to the Lords.
	In the current climate of voter apathy, dwindling party membership, and an increasing disinclination to participate in the political process, is this the right message to send to those UK citizens living abroad who may be affected by the amendment? We should be encouraging people to get involved with democracy and not provide barriers to getting involved in the political process. The reality of modern life is that many people do need to live and work abroad. Are we really saying, in this age of globalisation, that some of our most industrious people—those who get out around the world and promote our country in foreign lands—should be rewarded by having their political tights removed in such a way?
	If the provisions go through, will future laws seek to impose yet further restrictions on political donations? By shifting the link between voting and donating to one based on tax status, is there a risk of establishing a principle that political rights should be in some way based on making a contribution to the state through taxation? We cannot just allow political rights to be linked with taxation without a proper and full debate on the issue.
	The strongest argument against the provisions is that it would be very difficult for individual donors, for the political parties and for the Electoral Commission, in some circumstances, to establish whether they were in compliance with the new requirements because of the legal complexity of the concepts of residence and domicile.

Jonathan Djanogly: Yes, my hon. and learned Friend makes a fair point. I will not start weighing up the relative merits and demerits of the points that I have been making, but I hope that they are all relevant.
	We will need properly to review the Government amendments to consider how things will change. In addition, the parties and the commission would have to create new procedures and devolve additional resources in order to be in a position to ascertain or verify the residence and domicile status of donors. The new restrictions, we feel, would almost certainly be an infringement of the right to freedom of expression, which must be shown to be necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued. Taking that aim to be to prohibit foreign donors, it is arguable that the existing law already achieves that purpose by limiting donors to those on the electoral register. Since a connection with the UK is necessary in order to be on the electoral register, the amendment is therefore not necessary. However, if the aim, as intimated in debate in the other place on 30 April, is to attack the tax status of certain specific donors or to prevent undue influence on parties from large donors, it is arguable that both of those aims are better pursued through other measures, and that this particular measure is not proportionate in those contexts.
	The proposals would seem to run counter to the EU principle of free movement of people. They would alienate UK workers and residents abroad, breach regulatory principles, potentially link political rights with taxation and be extremely difficult to implement. They are certainly bad law. I say again that the Bill, with these proposals—whether or not they are amended by the Government—no longer carries cross-party support. We shall review these provisions in the detail that they deserve and return to them in the other place.

David Howarth: May I, too, express my sadness at the death of Lord Kingsland? He always made calm, rational, accurate and perceptive contributions to debates in the other place and he will be sadly missed by those in all parties there and in this House.
	The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox) is right that the question is whether there is any difference between the right to vote and the right to donate. If he is right, what is going on here makes a fundamental breach with that principle. However, I think that there is a difference between participating with one's own voice—and counting as one as an elector in an election—and seeking to influence the opinions of other electors through the use of money. They are different things.
	The principle behind the amendments and the original proposal in the House of Lords is simply that those who seek to distance themselves financially from this country by using their tax status to reduce their tax liability have, by that very act, distanced themselves from monetary participation in politics. That is different from participation as a voter. It seems absolutely crucial to make that distinction, especially as the Government have now introduced proposals—about which I am fairly relaxed—that mean that the rule applies only when the sum of £7,500 is involved. That is a very large donation, in my view. I do not think that there can be any question about whether there is a violation of rights to participate in associations—an article 11 argument—because there should not be any fundamental right to participate in organisations that it costs more than £7,500 to join.

David Howarth: I fear going along the lines that the right hon. Gentleman wants me to, but the answer is yes. A fundamental problem in the politics of this country is that foreign-owned media groups are so influential. However, that is not the issue before the House at the moment.
	I do not think that the article 10 point raised by the hon. Member for Huntingdon works. His argument was that there is no legitimate purpose in the restriction. If that were right, it would be equivalent to the £5 limit on third party activity in the Bowman case. I disagree with him, however. There is a legitimate purpose. It is the purpose that was put forward in the Bowman case, which is the need to protect the equality of arms between different candidates—in other words, as the Secretary of State said, to keep big money out of politics. That is a legitimate aim and the European Court of Human Rights recognises it as a legitimate aim. The Court said that the provisions in the Bowman case went beyond that and amounted to a bar on any expression by Mrs. Bowman at all. That cannot possibly be the case with this proposal, because, first, it applies only to donations and, secondly, it applies only to donations of more than £7,500.

David Howarth: The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct—I do seek a limit and a cap on all donations. If he is arguing that I am supporting this proposal because it is the thin end of the wedge, he is also right. I hope that it is. If there are any inconsistencies of the sort that he describes, I hope that they are resolved in a way that broadens the regulation so that it applies to more and more people.
	There are, however, some problems with the Bill as drafted. I am glad that the Secretary of State said that the proposals would be considered further before they finally pass. The point about the student that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) mentioned in his first contribution does not work. The Secretary of State did not reply to it, but my understanding of existing law—he might correct me if I am wrong—is that volunteering in someone's own free time does not count as a donation. That point is also important in answering the issues raised by the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon. This is not a restriction on political activity across the board; it is merely a restriction on donating money.

David Howarth: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to make that point, but it is one with which I fundamentally disagree. This really is the heart of the matter, and I am glad that we have reached it. The view that money equals freedom in all circumstances is one that, as far as I can tell, only the US Supreme Court takes. I have great respect for the US Supreme Court, but very few other political systems take that view to that extremity.
	Every other political system tries to balance the expressive part of spending money on a campaign—supporting a candidate by making a donation that the candidate uses to make their case—and the interest of equality of arms in the political system so that we do not have political system that depends on who has the richest donors. If one is to balance the two, one can conclude that the provisions are justified. Moreover, one must take the view that, to balance the two, one must be in favour of a cap on donations of any sort at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be arguing against any sort of donation cap under any circumstances; otherwise donors might be told that they cannot express themselves any more by making a donation above £50,000, £10,000 or £7,500. There must be a limit.

David Howarth: The hon. and learned Gentleman tempts me to go down a different route, but if he returns to the amendments proposed on Report in the Commons, he will see that my party made a proposal that would have dealt fairly with the union link with the Labour party, but I do not want to go down that route, because it is not before us tonight.
	Let me conclude by pointing out a couple of difficulties in the present draft of the Bill. First, it is not clear whether the legislation would be easily evaded simply by using companies as a conduit for donations. There appears to be an inconsistency between two parts of the way in which the provisions work. They start simply by talking about whether individuals satisfy particular tax status rules, but the declaration part of the provisions talks about whether that individual has caused a donation to be made. That seems to be different. Whether an individual is a permissible donor based on their tax status is one question; whether the person has caused a donation to be made is a second question. One can cause a donation to be made without being a donor oneself: one can use a company as a conduit or agent. The Government have got things half right. In the declaration provisions, they are getting there—it is about causing donations—but they need to think about whether the provisions themselves, not just the declarations provisions, should cover people causing donations to be made. In fact, in previous debates on this matter, we proposed, without any vote being called, provisions that would, in effect, equate the individuals who control companies with those companies. That would have the effect of changing the entire position.
	Let me end by talking about consensus. Throughout the debates on the Bill, for almost a year, the Government have said that it is not possible to make any further progress with the Hayden Phillips proposals, with the cap on donations that would apply to everyone, with global spending restrictions and with a fair resolution of the relationship between the Labour party and the unions, because there was no consensus. In effect, the Conservative party had a veto on any progress on those matters. We now reach this late stage on the Bill and—the hon. Member for Huntingdon must be right about this, because he makes it so, by the very fact that he objects—the Government have broken that consensus. I very much regret that the Government have wasted the opportunity, throughout the rest of the debates on the Bill, to break the consensus in a far more general way and, to take one of the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon, to produce a comprehensive settlement of the party funding issue in a way that would have satisfied the public, even though it might not have satisfied the parties.

Gordon Prentice: So far this has been a conversation between lawyers. I am not a lawyer, and I want to alert the House and the people outside to what this is all about. It is about very rich people buying elections. We can listen to the exchanges between lawyers until we are blue in the face, but that is what it is about—multimillionaires who live abroad buying elections.
	I congratulate my friends on the Front Bench on listening to Labour Members and to my friend Lord Campbell-Savours, who moved my amendments in the House of Lords. I am grateful to Lord Campbell-Savours and to my friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton), who has championed this issue for many years. When the tax exile amendments, if I may use that shorthand, were tabled in the House of Lords, more Labour peers voted against the Labour Government than voted for them—there was a majority of 22, including two former general secretaries of the Labour Party, Lords Sawyer and Whitty. That was the extent of the alliance. My friend the Justice Secretary said, in his opening remarks, that the Government were listening to the alliance—it was a huge alliance. Many of us think that the Government should have addressed the issue of the super-rich buying elections years ago.

Gordon Prentice: I am going to come to that point.
	I want to address the issue of consensus. Lord Bach, who led for the Government in the other place, said:
	"Any changes should command...consensus...this has been an overriding objective for the Government throughout the passage of this Bill."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 6 May 2009; Vol. 710, c. GC239.]
	I take a different view. I think that on this issue it would be impossible to reach consensus with the Conservative party. It was never going to agree to turn off the tap that feeds millions of pounds from tax exiles into the party coffers.

Graham Stuart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he is aware, the latest figures for Labour party funding show that 80 per cent. comes from the trade unions, and we know what impact that gives them on our national life. It was Conservative Members who proposed a £50,000 cap on donations, and it is grossly unfair to suggest that there was no possibility of reaching a consensus with us. The Labour party cannot carry on with its downright corrupt situation with the trade unions and blame us for any failure.

Gordon Prentice: We take what the hon. Gentleman says with a shovelful of salt because in an earlier intervention he referred to the communications allowance and, from memory, I think that he said that Labour Members voted themselves that allowance. In 2007-08, 158 Conservative Members claimed that allowance, and the shadow Cabinet collectively claimed a total of £185,000 through it.

Bob Spink: rose—

Gordon Prentice: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point.
	Why are the amendments needed? I restate this fundamental truth: it is possible to buy an election. I invite colleagues to visit www.gordonprenticemp.com and click on the blue rosette to find out exactly how much money is being spent in my constituency. There has been a cascade of money over the past two years.  [Interruption.] It is not about Gordon Prentice holding on to the Pendle seat; it is about rich individuals pumping millions of pounds into constituencies across the country and buying the next general election.
	Lord Bach said in the other place that expenditure outside the short period before an election is effectively deregulated. If a rich individual wanted to spend £1 million, £2 million or £5 million a year in a constituency, nothing in the law as it stands would prevent them from doing so. These multimillionaires, some of whom have written books about their tactics, live in their tax havens and influence our politics by bankrolling political parties and buying elections, and their actions pollute our democracy. It is scandalous that Conservative Members, with their lawyerly language, tell us that there are higher considerations that we must take into account. There are no higher considerations.
	After its experience with the Conservative peer Lord Laidlaw, the House of Lords Appointments Commission now makes tax status a determining factor in deciding whether to elevate someone to the House of Lords. Why does the Appointments Commission do that? It was because Lord Laidlaw, a former vice-chairman of the Conservative party and a self-confessed tax exile living in Monaco, told the commission prior to his elevation in 2004 that he would bring his tax affairs onshore, and then he refused—he reneged on that promise. But he still gave £3 million to the Conservative party and over £100,000 to a candidate for the mayoral elections in London. The Conservative party did not consider that to be tainted money and handed it back; no, it held on to those millions from Lord Laidlaw. Of course, it is not just Lord Laidlaw; there are other Lords as well.
	Let me finish on this point, in case I am straying out of order: we have heard that there is to be a £7,500 threshold for donations to political parties. Multimillionaires and others who want to give a lot of money to political parties will have to sign a declaration that they are a permissible donor, which will include a reference to their tax status. It will be a criminal offence for them knowingly to give an inaccurate or false declaration, and I say three cheers for that. If they knowingly mislead the wider public, the political party and, indeed, Parliament, they can be sent to jail. These declarations are not new. When we stood, all of us, for election to the House of Commons we had to sign a declaration, which went to the returning officer, saying that to the best of our knowledge we were not disqualified from sitting in this place because, for example, we were a peer or had a criminal record. The idea of asking someone to sign a declaration is well established.
	The Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) raised a few canards earlier. He said—I have heard this until I am blue in the face—that the proposal is hard to implement. Of course it is, but I look to my friends on the Front Bench and to the brainpower of the civil service to close the loophole; that is what we want them to do. We heard from the Member for Huntingdon that the proposal is contrary to European law; well, let that be tested in the courts. We are absolutely doing the right thing. I shall vote for the Government tonight, and I urge all my friends to join me in the Lobby to make sure that the provision gets on to the statute book.

John Redwood: We heard the authentic voice of Labour in that speech from the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who has insulted the British electorate in a big way. I do not believe that it is possible to buy an election in the way that he suggests. No matter how many millions the Conservative party might have spent in 1997 if the rules had been different, we would have lost. No matter how much money Labour spent in the European elections this year, they would have lost. The British public are quite able to discern what they want and who they want, and they are not driven by the biggest-spending party on any given occasion.
	The hurried and perhaps botched amendments that we are considering worry me for both general and specific reasons. I think that they are botched because, as the Justice Secretary kindly admitted, he will have to return to them in the other place, as he knows that they do not deal with all the matters that are coming out in this rather short debate, and that will come out as further consideration is given to the Bill. That shows the danger of legislating in such haste, after quite a long period in which proper consideration could have been given, both in the Chamber and in more general consultation.
	My general concern about the new proposals is that they are part of a drift to ensnare our politics in so much legalese and complexity that it puts off many amateurs who would otherwise be involved and be able to participate. I referred in an intervention to the plight of a party treasurer of whatever party. It is difficult enough to conform with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. We have seen all parties get into difficulties—inadvertently, I am sure. I am sure that they are trying to comply. Even that legislation has proved quite demanding and quite complicated, but as we have heard from Front Benchers of both main parties, it has the merit that all that the treasurer or other responsible official has to do is prove that the individual is registered to vote in this country and is on the electoral roll. There is a roll to which they can refer, and which is reasonably accessible, to establish that they have had due diligence.
	The proposals before us involve considerably more complication, in that three separate tests would be applied, and then a person would have to try to ascertain whether all the forms had been accurately filled in. I understand that there is to be self-certification by the individual seeking to make the donation, and that is where the burden will lie. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) explained, that individual could genuinely be unsure, or they might make a perfectly accurate declaration, but the facts and circumstances might change subsequently. Given the speed with which events can occur during an election campaign, it would be quite possible to imagine members of different parties making mistakes. There would be a long legal process afterwards to try to sort it all out.
	In a fast-moving democracy that relies on volunteers and voluntary donations, it would seem to be bad law to make things that complicated. The danger is twofold. First, it means that politics becomes about the process of politics, and it means that individuals and parties hurl allegations at each other in a way that can only damage the general reputation of politics and drag all parties further downwards. If, under clause 8, one party finds something wrong with somebody's declaration, the natural reaction of the other parties will be to find things wrong with the alternative party or parties, through the declarations. They would then throw allegations—perhaps fair, perhaps unfair. That will become part of a process of making politics about whether parties stick to the box-ticking letter of the law, rather than about the big issues that concern constituents and enliven political debate and general elections.
	When we get into that kind of snare or trap, we will find that all parties will want to go for more state funding instead. As the Justice Secretary has rightly said, that would be exceedingly unpopular with voters of all dispositions at the moment. However, the more it is made difficult for individuals, companies and trade unions to put their money into political parties on a voluntary basis, the more the political parties will seek other ways of finding state funding—and at a time when the state does not have any money and is having to borrow it all. The public would think that that was extremely unreasonable.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As always, my right hon. Friend makes a cogent and logical case. Does he not agree that the logic of his case extends to those people, whom all political parties have recognised, who live abroad and have resided in this country within the past 10 years—the period has been varied, but it is currently 10 years—and who are entitled to vote? They ought also to be entitled to give a political donation, if they wish.

John Redwood: That is exactly my view, and the view shared, I think, by most Conservative Members. I recommend it to the Government, because they will have supporters in a similar position—supporters who will feel cut out by the unwillingness of the legislation to allow them to participate fully in the way that other legally registered British voters can by virtue of residence.
	It is a dangerous principle to say that someone has to pay tax in a country to participate in its politics. There are all sorts of people in our country who, for good reasons, do not pay tax. Full participation cannot be linked to taxpaying. It is rather divisive to say otherwise, and I find it surprising that that view is taken by the Labour party, which normally stands up for people without much money who do not pay tax for that reason. It is strange to apply the argument in one direction but not in the other, when it comes to the issue of taxation. The American democracy may well have been based originally on the principle of no taxation without representation, but we do not want the principle that there can be full participation only with taxation. That would be a very odd principle indeed in a society where some people do not pay tax for good reasons.
	I hope that the Government will take the proposals away and think again. We know that they will think again, because their Front Benchers have promised that other amendments will be necessary to try to make sense of the inadequate amendments before us. I repeat what was said in an earlier exchange: it is quite wrong that something so important and fundamental to our democracy—issues relating to the participation rights of a wide range of British people—should be handled in such a way, at the last minute, without proper time for consideration of the amendments, without a further attempt to create consensus across the Chamber, and without proper discussion of the final amendments, which needs to take place.

Martin Linton: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) for raising the issue in his original amendment, Lord Campbell-Savours for tabling the amendment and winning the vote in the House of Lords, and my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, who have shown great wisdom in accepting the amendment. They are right to say that it raises practical difficulties, but those are not insuperable.
	The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 set the test that a donor should be registered for voting purposes, not resident for tax purposes. That was not my preference, but that test was set because it was the simplest. For most people it amounts to the same thing—to be registered, they must be resident in this country. However, it is possible to be registered as an overseas voter, for which I fought hard at the time. Although we should protect the right of UK citizens who live abroad to vote in UK elections for a limited period, it was never intended that that should act as a loophole for people who go abroad to escape tax liabilities to continue to enjoy the right to bankroll British elections.
	People who go abroad for tax purposes should not interfere in our elections. If they do not pay our taxes, why should they have any part in determining those taxes? The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) cited the American slogan, "No taxation without representation," and said that the reverse would be unfair—no representation without taxation. We are not arguing for no representation without taxation, but we are arguing that if people do not pay the taxes of the country, there is no reason why they should seek to invest millions of pounds in trying to win the election. Whether money in an election works or not—I have written a book on the subject—is not the point. It is clearly intended that it should, and sometimes, clearly, it does.

Martin Linton: The hon. Gentleman should keep his speech for when he is called. What he said has nothing to do with what I was saying. I seek a level playing field, justice and fairness in elections. That is my sole motivation. I do not do so because of any personal problems in my constituency.
	Let us investigate the principle of taxation and influence in the electoral system. It is no accident that it was the House of Lords that passed the amendment. Their lordships were the first to see a clear connection between paying taxes and the right to be a Member of this legislature. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle mentioned, the House of Lords Appointments Commission recently announced that it will not accept any new peers who are not resident for tax purposes. That test, being resident for tax purposes, should have been in the 2000 Act. It is now being introduced by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
	Indeed, the other place is debating a Bill that could lead to tax exiles being deprived of their titles, which would be only right. Lord Laidlaw has already been forced to take leave of absence from the House of Lords after failing to abide by a pledge to move his tax affairs onshore. He was appointed on the understanding that he would pay tax in this country, but he has not done so. Their lordships see a clear connection between paying taxes and influencing elections. I do not understand why hon. Members are so slow to see that connection.
	The House of Commons has been through a very difficult time in the past few months over the expenses scandal, with many MPs being publicly and humiliatingly disgraced—some rightly, some wrongly. Our job now is to audit MPs' expenses and see whether we can identify and punish wrongdoing and clear other MPs of the dark clouds of suspicion that hang over the whole of Parliament. It is our job to clean up politics, and the amendment is a part of that. It will not do MPs of any party any good to vote against the amendment or even to speak against it. That throws us right back into the morass from which we are trying to escape.

Martin Linton: Of course somebody who goes abroad temporarily to work should retain the right to vote if they wish to retain it. They will also have the right to donate up to £7,500 to an election campaign. I do not think that that is any great infringement of their democratic rights. They know that by going abroad, they put themselves in a position where they cannot maintain the right to influence elections in this country indefinitely. They know it is time-limited, and the amount of money that they may donate to political parties in this country can also be limited.
	Finally—this perhaps is a consensual point to end on—I strongly believe that we should introduce gift aid for small donations to political parties, so that the money that might come out of the political system through the amendment can be put back in through a fair system of tax exemption on donations. I tried, with my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, to table an amendment to the Finance Bill that was originally tabled in the House of Lords with support from Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers. It was the subject of consensual all-party agreement, and it would help to put back into the political system the money that is being taken out. It is far better to rely on a large number of small donations than to rely, as we do at present and which we are trying to change, on a small number of large donations.

Graham Stuart: I am not entirely aware of the sums. Lord Ashcroft is the demon in the minds of Labour Members, who sit there nursing their marginal seats, knowing that the electorate is coming for them. It is that knowledge that drives them on. In their fevered imagination, they see Lord Ashcroft, like some great grey figure hanging over them, sentencing their seat to lose to the Conservatives. To help slay Labour Members' demons, I should say that Lord Ashcroft's donations are far less than those of Lord Sainsbury. We hear about corruption from the Labour party, but a man who was serving as a Minister in the Government gave millions of pounds to them. What about the conflict of interest there? Did we hear the hon. Member for Pendle on his feet day after day campaigning with the hon. Member for Battersea against that conjunction? No, we did not.
	Lord Ashcroft's donations are on the public record. They are easy to find, a fraction of what Lord Sainsbury has given to the Labour party and, when broken down by constituencies, amount to a number of tens of thousands of pounds that have simply allowed for the employment of part-time staff and for communication with the electorate—upon which so much of our politics depends. Do I feel embarrassed or am I squirming about that? Quite the contrary: I am delighted that Lord Ashcroft, somebody of such public spiritedness who set up Crimestoppers and has been such a great philanthropist, also recognises the damage that this Government have done to this country. That is why I am so proud to have him as one of our many supporters. We, the Conservative party, are reliant on Lord Ashcroft for a tiny fraction of our income when compared with the income of the Labour party, the massive majority of which comes from the trade unions.

Graham Stuart: I can tell the hon. Gentleman straightforwardly that I have absolutely no idea; it is entirely a matter for Lord Ashcroft.
	The situation tonight is most unedifying. Ministers recognised that the Lords amendments had no proper place in the Bill but, to throw red meat to the likes of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Battersea and try to buy off rebels, have decided to allow clause 8 to go forward—despite the fact that it will not work in practice. The hon. Gentlemen are clearly fixated by people of great wealth who might want to donate to political parties, but anybody of any great wealth will of course have companies in which they are major shareholders, and, unless we want to restrict British companies that trade fully in this country also from participating in and supporting British politics, which seems to be the view of the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), we will find that the clause will be completely ineffectual. I imagine that the Secretary of State, when he discussed it with his colleagues, decided that, like so much of the Government's current legislation, it would not work but, if it appeased Labour Members on the far Back Benches for a while, would be a price worth paying—even if it were of no real moment.
	We need to clean up politics, but we need to recognise the real demon that afflicts our political system. The real demon in political funding is not Lord Ashcroft or any of the other thousands of people who donate to the Conservative party; it is a Labour party that is entirely dependent on funding from the trade unions; and a Labour party whose Ministers sit down with Warwick agreements 1 and 2. It is that relationship which is utterly corrupt, indefensible and should be the subject of legislation, not this partisan effort by the Government today.

Geoffrey Cox: I am going to steer away from partisan rhetoric, because there are some fundamental points that must be considered. I have in mind, particularly, the gauntlet that the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) so thoughtfully threw down to me, regarding what might be the legitimate objective of the Government's amendments. It has caused me a degree of reflection, because what was striking in the Secretary of State's account of the reasons for the amendments was the almost complete absence of a substantive justification. Indeed, I asked him to give one, saying, "What is the rationale for linking the right to donate to the obligation to pay taxes in this country?"  Hansard will show his response, but, as I recollect, he said, "Well, I have made the same argument as you have." I have not heard a more half-hearted—indeed, a more apologetic—defence of an amendment since I have been a Member, which I accept is not a very long time.

Geoffrey Cox: One has just appeared.
	I must say that I have been reflecting on my right hon. Friend's point as we have been debating.
	I wanted to consider the legitimate objective that the hon. Member for Cambridge gave, but I have to say that it is a remarkable thing, when a Government amendment is best justified by a speech from a Liberal Democrat Front Bencher. However, I listened with interest and a degree of pause for reflection when the hon. Gentleman postulated that, in the Bill before us, the legitimate objective that is being fulfilled is, in effect, the prevention of big money influencing elections, as I think he put it.
	I should not subscribe to the free-for-all for which some people criticise the United States system, and I accept that it could be perfectly legitimate to impose a general prohibition, cap or ceiling on donations. However, what I find extremely difficult to understand is how there can be a rational justification to require somebody to pay taxes in this country before they can donate, but not require them to pay taxes in this country before they can vote. I have been wrestling with it from the very beginning and do not understand it.
	I perfectly well understand the hon. Gentleman's argument for a cap, but what is entirely factitious is the use of the qualification to pay tax in this country as a preventive bar to donating. That does not seem to be rationally connected. On the question of multiple millionaires, who are largely situated abroad because they exploit looser tax regimes elsewhere, why should we not just say, "They shouldn't be allowed to donate large sums of money, but, in the same way, nor should other people who are perhaps so rich that it doesn't matter to them how much tax they pay in this country"? I do not understand the rational connection between the measure under discussion and the qualification or non-qualification to pay tax in this country.

Geoffrey Cox: I should understand that, were it a reason for preventing somebody from voting, but the argument is that a British citizen has a sufficiently substantive connection with what is going on in this country to be allowed to vote and to stand in an election, but not to donate. The suggestion that there is somehow a moral or rational justification for the measure, based on the fact that somebody does not pay taxes in this country, does not fulfil the requirement that the hon. Gentleman knows the European Court of Human Rights would impose—namely, a rational justification for the intrusion into the right. We need a legitimate objective. The measure has to be rationally connected with the objective and to be no more than is necessary to achieve it.
	We know that large numbers of people who are not in the Labour party's bête noire category, but are relatively modestly affluent, will be prevented from donating. The Secretary of State for Justice proposes a limit of £7,500, but that is an arbitrary figure, plucked from nowhere. Why not £15,000 or £20,000? Why not £30,000? The figures that the Labour party objects to are in the millions, but relatively modestly affluent people who feel strongly may wish to donate £7,500, £10,000, £15,000, £20,000 or £30,000.
	Frankly, if we allow somebody to vote and stand in an election, and if they are a British citizen who feels strongly about the fate and destiny of their country, how can it conceivably be rational to prevent them from supporting their own campaigns or those of the party that they support? It simply makes no sense to me at all, and I am fortified in that opinion by the fact that the opinion of the Secretary of State for Justice is the same.

Graham Stuart: Is my hon. and learned Friend, like me, bewildered by the Liberal Democrat approach to the issue? It seems so anti-European. We are in a single market, where people are encouraged to move across Europe and where people are—in the Liberal Democrat vision, at least—one polity. Yet people who have used that freedom, which we all support and agree with, find themselves artificially restricted because of partisan points of view.

Geoffrey Cox: My right hon. Friend may well be right.
	I want to concentrate on the question of whether the proposed measure would have an impact within the context of the Human Rights Act and article 10, which is about freedom of expression. Unlike the hon. Member for Cambridge, I think that that is a real issue. The European Court of Human Rights has plainly considered that the right to donate, to put your money where your mouth is, is encompassed within article 10. One therefore has to answer this question: why single out those who live and are taxed abroad if we are allowing them to vote? The hon. Gentleman has given the reason; he says that tax exiles do not pay taxes in this country and that—I think this a little fanciful—the money that they save could be deployed for the purposes of donation. It is therefore, he says, perfectly legitimate to require that such people should be part of the tax system.
	I say with respect to the hon. Gentleman that placing so invasive a restriction on an individual on so flimsy and artificial a footing is not consistent with the principles that he upholds as a liberal. I sympathise with those principles because personal, individual freedom is a fundamental principle about which all in the House, from whatever political tradition, should be concerned; I know that there are Labour Members who feel as passionately about that as I do and the hon. Gentleman does. In considering what principle and the freedom of the individual require, we should not give credence to the convenient and expedient arguments articulated with great elegance and some sophistication by the hon. Gentleman.
	The hon. Gentleman's position would have been far more principled, and would have had more of the integrity that he ordinarily evinces in the House, if he had said that the measure looks like what it is. It is, regrettably, a capitulation by the Secretary of State to pressures with which he does not agree; he has adopted a measure in which he has no confidence. He has put it before the House for reasons that the rest of us can only guess at. The principled approach would be to do precisely what the hon. Member for Cambridge said the Secretary of State should have done, and I completely agree: if a measure such as this is to be moved, it should be moved as part of a comprehensive settlement and on the basis of principle, not partisanship.
	I have great respect for the Secretary of State for Justice, who is an urbane and civilised member of the Government and for whom one can only have considerable respect. However, on this occasion he has come to the Dispatch Box and, in a sense, declined to give a substantive rationale or justification for the measure. When challenged, he said that he had used the same argument as his challenger—and he said that so half-heartedly and apologetically. That does not, I am afraid, attract confidence that the measure has the substance, solidity and soundness that it ought to have if the House is to feel obliged to vote for it.

Jack Straw: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to the debate. It has been characterised by two distinct kinds of speeches. The hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and for Cambridge (David Howarth) and many—but not all—contributors from my side have sought to address the issues in a relatively measured way. There have also been some hyperbolic and partisan performances.
	I am only too well aware that if we scratch the surface, the issue of party funding arouses great tribal feelings. Whenever two or three Labour Members gather together, it does not take long for a peer's name beginning with "A" to fall from their lips; equally, a particular kind of Conservative Member will foam at the mouth at the very mention of trade unions. I understand that, which is why my general view has always been that we have to recognise the tribal nature of the issue and the fact that people feel strongly about it, and in a partisan way. However, we should also do our best to secure as close a consensus as possible on the issue.
	We have a great interest in the fortunes of our own parties, but we are also the trustees of our democracy. The ground rules for that democracy are set here, and we have to hold back a bit in case we descend to the position arrived at in parts of the United States. In those areas, even the setting of boundaries is the subject of the most extraordinary partisanship; how the boundaries are set would make even Mr. Gerry Mander blush. In general, we avoid that here but it is important that we should.
	To underline a point made by the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), Conservative Members' hyperbole about the issue sits rather oddly with their behaviour—or rather lack of it—in the other place. The simple fact is that 80 per cent., or four out of five, of the peers who take the Conservative Whip—there are just over 200 of them—failed to vote against Lord Campbell-Savours' amendment when it was before that House in the middle of June; they could muster only 40 Members altogether. That leads me to feel that some of the opposition to this measure, particularly given the amendments that we are now introducing, is, to a high degree, quite synthetic.
	I hope, in any event, that when the Conservatives are able to examine these proposals in more detail—I apologise to the House for the fact that they were tabled on Friday and were therefore not available to most Members until this morning—they will recognise that they are not quite the end of civilisation as we know it. Indeed, they are a considerable modification—because they have to be—of what Lord Campbell-Savours put forward.
	It is also worth Conservative Members—I say this in a spirit of friendship—reflecting on the fact that, to my complete surprise, a significant number of respected Cross-Bench peers, who are wholly non-partisan, strongly supported the Campbell-Savours amendment. They included Lord Jay of Ewelme, a former head of the diplomatic service; Baroness D'Souza, the chair of the Cross-Bench peers; and, in particular, Lord Neill of Bladen, who has a very distinguished academic and judicial record, and who chaired, very well, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and produced the whopping great report in 1998 that laid the foundation of the party funding Bill that I introduced in 1999-2000. He made a very strident speech in favour of these changes. Of course—I put this on the record in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox)—I acknowledge what is patently true: that my position, and that of the Government, has shifted. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister and I have made clear, that is because we judged that we needed to take account of the change in sentiment highlighted not least by the debate in the other place.
	It would probably be helpful if I answered one or two of the detailed points that have been made. It is continually amusing these days to see how the world has turned upside down somewhat as regards the European convention on human rights. I often notice that the convention and the Human Rights Act 1998 have become so much part of the common currency of British public life that Conservative Members cannot help themselves in praying in aid articles 8, 10 or 11 when it suits them, forgetting that their party has pledged to repeal the Human Rights Act and all its works, and probably to denounce the convention as well.

Jack Straw: No, because I think I would be brought back into order if I did so.
	The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)—he is not here, but it is important that I correct the record—asked whether aggregate donations would breach the limit. Although I did not say so in terms, I said that I thought that the current law was that donations were aggregated. However, that is not the case. At the moment, there is no requirement to aggregate multiple donations in one year. We are considering whether such a provision would be needed, and that will require a great deal of consultation down the track—not for this Bill. In any case, there are some practical problems as regards aggregating donations. That is an existing issue that is not affected directly one way or the other by the provisions in this group of amendments. I hope that that is helpful. I also hope that my note is correct; otherwise, I will end up having to correct the record again.
	The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon—I apologise again for my cough—asked about proportionality and whether these provisions are consistent with the provisions of articles 10 and 11. At the moment, there is no ban on any non-permissible donor giving up to £200, soon to be £500. We are proposing that, for these purposes, restrictions on a non-permissible donation apply only at £7,500, so somebody could play an active part in British politics from abroad while giving up to that amount. Overall, the restriction is relatively proportionate.

Graham Stuart: The Secretary of State's clarification again shows how important it is to take time to get such legislation right. I have calculated on my BlackBerry that someone who wanted to give money to a particular party in every constituency in the country could give £4,844,354 a year and apparently not be restricted in any way. That cannot be right, and it must prove my point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Lords amendments 34 to 47, 50, 96 to 98,105 and 106.

Michael Wills: Of course I accept that, and I said that the corporation sole must be demonstrably independent of the Government. I do not think that the Secretary of State would quite qualify under that particular criterion.
	Data security and protection are very important and, for that reason, the new power provides that the Secretary of State may, in the order that I mentioned, establish an advisory panel to provide advice and support to the office holder on any difficult issues that arise, for example in relation to the management, processing or supply of electoral registration information. The advisory panel would not be a separate non-departmental public body in its own right, but it would form part of the overall structure of the corporation sole.
	The amendment provides for necessary matters of detail concerning the creation of the corporation sole to be addressed in the order, and it also makes provision for a number of matters that would be consequential upon the establishment of the corporation sole. In particular, it amends section 1(10) of the 2006 Act to provide expressly that a person designated as the CORE keeper under the CORE scheme order must be a corporation sole established under the new power, or some other public authority. That will preserve the ability of another public authority to take on the role of CORE keeper if that is considered appropriate in future.
	The amendment also provides for an order establishing the new corporation sole to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and provides that before the order can be made, the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner must be consulted. Those requirements are designed to ensure that the order will be subject to a high degree of scrutiny. I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) is reassured by that. We have to retain flexibility, but the House will have ample opportunity to scrutinise any implementation of that flexibility.
	I turn to the other amendments. CORE will create a new national database of electoral data, and therefore different security arrangements may be required. CORE will not make any new information available, nor will it supply electoral data to anyone not entitled to them. As the data it will hold will be available from a single point rather than through individual electoral registration officers, it will be easier to access the national data set.
	The effect of provisions in the 2006 Act is that regulations governing access to, and supply of, the electoral register by electoral registration officers will also apply to the CORE keeper, subject to any modifications that the Secretary of State considers appropriate. That means that bodies currently entitled to receive copies of the electoral register and related information from electoral registration officers will be entitled to receive the same information from the CORE keeper, subject to the same restrictions on access and use. In the light of that, Lords amendment 34 supplements the Secretary of State's existing power to modify the application of the regulations by enabling additional or different protections to be imposed on the supply of material by the CORE keeper.
	Lords amendment 35 relates to section 3 of the Juries Act 1974, which requires electoral registration officers to supply copies of the register for the purpose of jury summoning. Once the CORE system is operational, it may be more efficient and convenient for the registers to be supplied on a national scale by the CORE keeper rather than by each individual electoral registration officer. Accordingly, the amendment creates a power to amend section 3 of the 1974 Act to provide for that, but it will not allow anyone who is not already entitled to access the register from electoral registration officers to do so from the CORE keeper.
	Lords amendment 36 extends the Secretary of State's existing powers in relation to the CORE scheme order, so that it can authorise information sharing between the CORE keeper and the Electoral Commission. As I have detailed, the original intention was for the commission to be the CORE keeper. Now given that is not to be the case, however, it is important that the CORE keeper is able to furnish the commission with information that is relevant to its functions. It is envisaged that that power will enable the CORE keeper to provide the Electoral Commission with information on what checks have been made by political parties—for example, whether a particular person's entry was checked before a donation or loan was accepted from that person. CORE will also provide statistical information to support electoral registration officer performance standards, such as registration changes year on year. The power may also be used to enable the CORE keeper to inform the commission if an electoral registration officer has failed to report back to the CORE keeper on steps taken to investigate potential instances of fraud or other improprieties, as may be required in the CORE scheme order.
	I turn to Lords amendments 37 to 50, 96 to 98, 105 and 106, on individual registration. On 2 March, this House spent a considerable period discussing some of the general principles of that most important subject. In these amendments, the Government have set out their approach to the implementation of individual registration in Great Britain. It is an historic shift with a carefully phased timetable, designed to bolster and support both the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the electoral register. I believe that in our previous discussions, there has been agreement throughout the House about how important both those principles are.

Michael Wills: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, and I look forward to her support for the amendments as a result.
	It is important that we take a phased approach, alongside extensive work to increase registration rates. That will enable us to uphold the integrity of our electoral registration processes as we prepare both the public and the system for this fundamental and historic change. It is vital that we put integrity at the heart of everything we do. Electoral registration is the gateway to democratic participation and without effective registration processes, individuals are denied the right to participate and democracy is undermined.
	We all know that the system is not perfect in that respect. On the best estimates, about 3 million or 3.5 million people are eligible to vote but are not on the register, and are therefore denied the right to exercise their vote. That damages our democracy, and we can be satisfied only when every eligible person is on the register. We need to do more to ensure that that is the case and that the historic shift to individual registration does not further damage the integrity of the register in that respect. I will say a little more about how we intend to do that.
	Before I discuss in more detail the amendments that were tabled in another place, I would like briefly to talk about the benefits that individual registration will offer. The first is enhanced integrity. All the evidence shows that electoral fraud is not considered a major problem in this country, but there is never room for complacency about fraud. We have taken steps to reduce the risk of fraud under the Electoral Administration Act 2006—for example, by introducing a new offence of providing false information to an electoral registration officer when registering to vote. However, any amount of fraud is unacceptable, and the perception of fraud is equally dangerous. It undermines confidence in our democracy and the perceived legitimacy of our democratic processes. We must take steps to ensure that the registration system is as robust as possible in enabling us to detect and prevent electoral fraud.
	For that reason, a system of individual registration offers adds security because it requires electors to provide identifying information to register to vote. It enables the system to verify entries against a third party database and makes it more difficult to fabricate registration. Individual registration is an important step towards strengthening the integrity—and the perception of the integrity—of the electoral process.
	Furthermore, individual registration has the potential to strengthen all citizens' engagement in the democratic process by giving them responsibility for their registration. It replaces an outdated household registration system, whereby one member of the household takes responsibility for registering all the others. That is antiquated and belongs to a different system of suffrage. We need a system that better reflects people's circumstances today.
	Introducing individual registration is the most significant change in electoral administration for many years. It is the right thing to do, and it will bolster the security and accuracy of our registration. However, it will make registering to vote more complex for individuals, who will be required to provide additional identifying information to register to vote. We must recognise that some people will experience considerable difficulty in doing that. For example, we know that one in five adults are functionally illiterate. The Government are addressing that vigorously, but it is none the less a fact of which we must take account when we consider how to move to the new system of electoral registration.
	We have given careful consideration to the potential impact of the new requirement on the comprehensiveness of the register. The phased approach that we propose is designed to enable us to secure the benefits of enhanced accuracy and security, without damaging the comprehensiveness of the register.
	What will the amendments do? Our approach to individual registration is to move in two phases: a voluntary phase and a compulsory phase. During the voluntary phase, it will be compulsory for electoral registration officers to ask individuals to provide the relevant identifying information—national insurance number, date of birth and signature—but individuals will not be required to do that to be on the register.
	The voluntary phase will prepare the public for the changes ahead, in particular, the new requirement to provide identifying information for the purposes of registration. It will allow electoral administrators to develop the processes and systems for collecting and storing the identifying information. During the voluntary phase, the Electoral Commission will be asked to draft annual progress reports on how the voluntary system is working; the overall health of the registration system, and whether any changes would be needed were the collection of identifying information to be taken forward on a compulsory basis. That will provide us with invaluable information for our understanding of the effectiveness of the registration system and its readiness for the shift to individual registration.
	The voluntary phase will not commence before July 2010—in other words, it will not become entangled with the next general election, whenever that may be—and will not finish before 2014. That period will enable us to be fully confident that the system is ready before we move to the compulsory phase, when it will be obligatory for individuals to provide identifying information to electoral registration officers to be included on the register. It will enable us to prepare the public for the change, and to take steps to bolster registration rates in the meantime. That will be fundamental to protecting the system against the risk of a drop in the numbers registered.

Michael Wills: It would be a rash politician who ever said "never", but when the hon. Lady has heard the rest of my remarks, I think she will agree that rushing the matter in the way she suggests would be unwise and risk tarnishing our whole electoral system. I will go through the details shortly, but I ask her to bear it in mind that we already have 3 million people who are eligible to vote but are not on the register. That represents a huge challenge to registration, which we must tackle. Some measures are already in train—we are doing everything we can to tackle the problem, and then move to a system of individual registration. As she will hear, that will create genuine problems and challenges to the registration system over and above the existing ones. To rush the matter and take the risk of even more people falling off the register as a result of undue haste would be unwise and damage the integrity, and the perception of the integrity, of the entire system. When she has heard what else I have to say, she may agree that it would be most unwise to proceed before 2014.

Michael Wills: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her constructive approach.
	I shall now deal with the detail of the amendments. The new clause, which Lords amendment 37 would introduce, provides for the voluntary collection of personal identifiers—date of birth, signature and national insurance number—from electors alongside the existing process of household registration. It would make it obligatory for electoral registration officers to take steps to obtain that information from 1 July 2010, and it would set a minimum level for those steps.
	The new clause that Lords amendment 38 would introduce contains a power to make regulations to help enable the voluntary provision of identifying information to take place. The power to make regulations would include, by virtue of proposed subsection (1)(a) and (b), a power to amend the identifiers to be collected during the voluntary phase. That might become necessary if, for example, technological advances required a different type of identifying information to be used. That power would be subject to affirmative resolution, and the Electoral Commission would have to be consulted before it was used. It is potentially a significant power and that is why we believe that it is important to exercise such a high level of scrutiny before it is deployed.

Michael Wills: As I said, our view is that the identifiers should be a national insurance number, a signature and date of birth. We believe that that is appropriate, but things change and it is important for the Government of the day to have a power to respond to, for example, technological changes. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman enough reassurance to support the Government on the amendments.
	As I have said, the power to make regulations is potentially significant. Therefore, we have taken particular care to have regard to the comprehensiveness of the register and the effect that any change in the identifiers might have on it. Our view is that there are considerable challenges and we do not want to make them worse. Therefore, in consulting the commission, the Secretary of State must seek its view on the impact on the register of changes to identifiers in the event of the provision of identifiers becoming compulsory. That is intended to act as a safeguard, ensuring that any amendments to the identifying information provided would not have a negative impact on groups that are already under-represented.
	The new clause introduced by Lords amendment 38 would also provide a power to make consequential amendments to the provision inserted by Lords amendment 37. In addition, subsection (1)(c) of the new clause provides for regulations to make supplementary provision to enable the collection of identifiers on a voluntary basis. The specific matters that can be included in regulations made under that power are listed in subsection (2) of the new clause. Subsection (2) would provide for the Secretary of State to make provision for the kinds of forms that could be used to collect identifiers, what those forms should say, how they should be kept and how data held by the authority responsible for the national insurance number database could be shared with electoral registration officers or the CORE keeper, as well as the charging of fees for the provision of data. The new clause introduced by Lords amendment 38 would make it an offence for an electoral registration officer to share information other than for specified purposes.
	In addition, the new clause introduced by Lords amendment 38 would allow us to make provision for what steps an electoral registration officer should take if he or she suspected that the identifying information provided was false. That is important in enabling the system to tackle fraud. Although the intention is that no one will be removed from the register in that phase for failing to provide identifiers or providing inaccurate identifiers, we will take powers to set out in regulations the steps that electoral registration officers must take in the event of false or inaccurate identifier information being provided.
	The first set of regulations made under those powers will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as will any subsequent regulations that amend the preceding clause, which sets out the obligation for electoral registration officers to collect personal identifiers on a voluntary basis. Subsequent regulations that do not amend the provision relating to the voluntary collection of identifiers and seek only to make supplementary provisions will be made under the negative resolution procedure. That is because we consider that such regulations will be technical—for instance, adjustments to forms, as we establish what works—and less likely to warrant a full parliamentary debate. Hon. Members will be aware that much legislation relating to registration is already made by order under the current system.
	The Electoral Commission must be consulted before regulations can be made using those powers. In consulting the commission in respect of regulations that seek to change the personal identifiers, the Secretary of State must seek its view on whether any such amendments to the identifying information would have a negative impact on under-represented groups.
	The new clause introduced by Lords amendment 39 would require the Electoral Commission to keep the voluntary phase under review and would provide for annual progress reports to be published by the Electoral Commission. It would also require the commission's report in 2014 to include a recommendation on whether the evidence supported a shift to the compulsory phase of individual registration. The reports must assess the progress of the voluntary phase against the tests set out in subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause introduced by Lords amendment 39. Which tests have to be applied will depend on the year in which the report is submitted.
	Under subsection (3) of the new clause introduced by Lords amendment 39, each report, irrespective of when it is submitted, will contain an assessment of the adequacy of the registration system in meeting the registration objectives and an assessment of whether any changes are needed ahead of a shift to individual registration. That is essential if we are to build up a clear evidence base on the health of the registration system and its readiness to be subjected to such a significant change. In addition, it is important that those who represent hard-to-reach groups are given an adequate opportunity to contribute to the consideration relating to the move to individual registration. We would therefore expect the Electoral Commission to engage with such groups and organisations from the outset in considering the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the register and in making its recommendations.
	In 2014, the commission's report will be different. In addition to the assessment that I have outlined, that report must contain an assessment as to whether making the provision of identifiers compulsory would help or hinder the achievement of the registration objectives and a recommendation as to whether the collection of identifying information should be made obligatory. It may help the House if I briefly clarify what the registration objectives are, as set out in subsections (8)(a) to (c) of the new clause introduced by Lords amendment 38:
	"that persons who are entitled to be registered...are registered...that persons...not entitled to be registered...are not registered...and...that none of the information relating to a registered person...is false."
	Those objectives mirror the definitions already used to provide for individual registration in Northern Ireland and are designed to ensure that the register is both comprehensive and accurate.
	The Electoral Commission's report in 2014 will be laid before Parliament. If the report features a recommendation in favour of a move to the compulsory phase and if that recommendation is approved by a resolution of both Houses, the Secretary of State will be obliged to make an order commencing provisions that bring the compulsory phase into effect. That ensures, rightly, that Parliament is at the heart of that fundamental shift and that it cannot happen without Parliament's say-so.
	In the event that the shift to the obligatory provision of identifiers is not recommended by the commission, or that Parliament does not approve a positive recommendation, the Secretary of State must, within a year of a negative report or within a year of Parliament rejecting a positive report, make a request that the Electoral Commission produce another report. That report would have to be delivered on a specified date at least one year and not more than two years after that request was made. Again, the report must make a recommendation, and the same process as that described above will apply to that recommendation. That time scale should enable further steps to be taken, if necessary, to prepare the system for the change.
	The new clauses introduced by Lords amendments 40 and 41 provide for the obligatory provision of personal identifiers, in the event that Parliament approves a positive recommendation by the Electoral Commission. Lords amendment 40 applies the 2002 Northern Ireland model to the rest of the United Kingdom with a number of amendments. The purpose of the amendments is to enable a flexible approach to implementation, which will be appropriately tailored to the circumstances of Great Britain. For example, they will make it possible to insist on electoral registration officers using a prescribed canvass form in Great Britain, which will give added flexibility. They will amend the legislation so that the three-month residency requirement in Northern Ireland—which dates back 60 years to the Government of Ireland Act 1949—does not apply to the rest of the UK, where it is clearly not relevant. They will also provide for the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations alternative evidence to be provided by those who do not have a national insurance number. Again, that will provide flexibility.
	The new clause introduced by Lords amendment 41 contains broad order-making powers to allow for the transition to the obligatory collection of identifiers and for the Secretary of State to change the identifiers to be provided in the compulsory phase. It also contains, at subsection (1), transitional provision for those already on the register in the autumn of 2015. From autumn 2015, it is proposed that all new registrations—people moving house and re-registering, or anyone entirely new to the register—would have to provide the identifiers to be put on to the register. However, subsection (1) allows that anyone already on the register in the autumn of 2015 may remain on the register—subject to their meeting the existing conditions for confirming their registration to the electoral registration officer—without providing their identifiers in the 2015 or 2016 canvass. From the autumn canvass, such individuals will have to provide their identifiers in order to remain on the register. From that point, therefore, identifiers would be in place for all entries on the register.
	The remaining amendments are mostly minor technical amendments that clarify the definitions used in the clauses and extend individual registration from Northern Ireland, where it is already in place, to the whole of the United Kingdom.
	The process set out in the amendments is very significant, and one that we must get right. The carefully phased timetable, spanning at least seven years, is designed to support the system and the public through the period of transition, and to prepare them as fully as possible for this radical and historic shift. If we do not get the process right, and the comprehensiveness of the register is compromised as a result, the consequences for our democracy will be serious. I know that there are those who argue that we should be moving more quickly. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) has argued that consistently, and I want to spell out to her again why it is so important not to rush this process.
	We know that the introduction of individual registration in Northern Ireland in 2002 led to a fall in numbers on the register. We must all learn the lessons of that experience. Under individual registration, many individuals will be responsible for their own registration for the first time, and, as I have said, that will pose considerable challenges. I want to quote briefly from the Electoral Commission report on the shift to individual registration in Northern Ireland. It stated:
	"The new registration process disproportionately impacted on young people and students, people with learning disabilities, people with disabilities generally and those living in areas of high social deprivation."
	We simply must not repeat that outcome when the system is introduced in Great Britain. That is why we are proposing, alongside the phased implementation of individual registration, to take a range of steps to bolster the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the register, and our understanding of registration across Great Britain.
	Before I come on to those steps, I shall outline the additional practical reasons why I am fundamentally opposed to making the shift before 2015. First, the implementation of full individual registration in 2015 would minimise as far as possible the risk of implementation directly ahead of a national or sub-national poll. A dip in the numbers registered—we run the risk of such a dip occurring—ahead of any such poll would have damaging consequences for the legitimacy of our electoral processes. Individual registration was able to be implemented swiftly in Northern Ireland not least because there was only one authority there to co-ordinate for electoral purposes. In Great Britain, there are more than 400 different registration officers, each with their own processes and registers, and co-ordination on such a scale will inevitably take time.
	The move to individual registration will involve a very significant change in infrastructure and processes, including new IT systems and data sharing on a national scale. We cannot rush such implementation. The current timetable will, we believe, give us time to test what works before moving to full implementation on the basis of the best possible evidence that we can secure.
	Taken together in the round and given the real risk of a drop in registration rates, we need actively to move to bolster registration rates as far as possible in advance of implementation. To that end, we intend to pilot data-matching schemes with public authorities to enhance the accuracy and completeness of the register; to enable enhanced data sharing in two-tier local authorities via secondary legislation; to make explicit in secondary legislation that the duty on electoral registration officers to register individuals applies all year round; and to consider whether more can be done to bolster the performance standards framework for EROs.
	We will explore whether registration can be promoted at every point at which the individual interacts with public services. We have already started distributing leaflets and posters in citizens advice bureaux, making a training fact sheet available to CAB volunteers through their intranet system so they can better inform the public about registration. We are distributing posters throughout the network of courts across the country. We want to do more to provide people with opportunities to register to vote, and we are looking into the possibility of supplying rolling registration forms in post office branches to capture the details of eligible electors who, for whatever reason, are not on the register.
	Those initiatives will inevitably take time to bed in and take effect and there may, of course, be other initiatives. We are actively exploring at the moment moves to bolster the current registration system, such as by introducing a duty to register and possibly making other changes to the current framework. The current timetable will allow us to explore all feasible options before making the shift to individual registration.
	At the same time, the Electoral Commission will produce yearly reports on the health of the registration system and in 2012, crucially, we should have our clearest ever indication of registration rates, thanks to the data being collected as part of the national census. That is very important, as it will give us a crucial tool for assessing the robustness of the system.
	Taken all in all, this is a massive programme of work. We are often criticised—all Governments have been criticised—for conducting major project in haste and then having to iron out the problems later, but we simply cannot afford to do that with something as important to our democracy as this historic shift. I hope that I have managed to persuade the House of the importance of the timetable. It is not a recipe for kicking the move into the long grass. What we are proposing is very clear and there is a clear end-date, subject to the tests being met—tests that I think the whole House will agree are necessary.
	Before I conclude, I wish to deal with issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who is sadly no longer in his place. He raised an important point about the willingness of electoral registration officers to pursue the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the register with all due diligence. I recognise the importance of my hon. Friend's allegation. He, of course, will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases, but I want to stress that the overwhelming majority of EROs—and I believe that the whole House would agree on this—and the chief executives of local authorities are dedicated public servants. They would never do anything to compromise their impartiality or the integrity of the electoral registration system, which is the foundation of our democracy. That has certainly been my experience of all the EROs I have met at the conferences I have mentioned that took place over the last two years.
	I repeat that I am aware of the allegations that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd and perhaps others have made, and those allegations are, of course, worrying. I have looked into the issues and it is clear, on reflection, that the system of governance for electoral registration officers could be made more robust—no matter, as I have said, that the overwhelming majority of such officers and the chief executives of local authorities are dedicated public servants.
	It is clearly vital that the public should have complete confidence in the Government's arrangements for our electoral system and the safeguards that exist at both the local and national level. The Electoral Commission agrees. I hope that my hon. Friend will gain comfort from reading  Hansard tomorrow, because I can tell him that Ministry of Justice officials have begun discussions with the Electoral Commission about how the safeguards can be enhanced. I will report to the House before the end of the year on how we propose to improve the system of governance, and I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend and the House.
	I also hope that all Members recognise that the amendments will lead to a carefully and successfully managed transition to individual registration, ensuring that the public are well informed and the system is ready for the change. The Electoral Commission itself has said that the process of moving to individual registration must take place under careful scrutiny. It has said that this would be
	"a major change to the electoral registration system in Great Britain. There will need to be detailed planning and identification of key milestones to provide the basis for moving towards implementation of individual electoral registration over a number of years, including the delivery of public awareness campaigns during any transition to a new system."
	I hope that all Members will agree that this historic shift will enrich our democracy. It will give people more responsibility for their votes, and will provide an electoral registration system that more accurately reflects their lives today. However, that must be done in a way that is mindful of the need to engage the public in the process, and protects the comprehensiveness of the register as well as its accuracy.

Eleanor Laing: Conservative Members do not disagree with the Government in any respect on Lords amendment 33. It is unfortunate that, owing to time constraints, the issue was not debated on Report in the other place, but we are able to explore some aspects of it this evening.
	We have already raised the working of the Electoral Administration Act 2006, and I have sought reassurances from the Minister about the data protection arrangements relating to the position of the CORE keeper. We are pleased to note that unauthorised disclosure is now to be an offence, but what security support will the Government give the CORE keeper to avoid such a breach of the rules and the legislation?
	I am sure that Ministers are well aware—as are we all—of some of the dreadful data losses that the Government have suffered. The larger government becomes, the more risk there is of data losses. The information that we are discussing is very sensitive, and we are anxious to ensure that there is no chance of data loss—or rather, given that accidents happen, that the chance of data loss is minimised as far as possible. That can be done if the Government provide the right safeguards at the outset.
	Can the Minister give us any more information about the timetable for the establishment of the CORE keeper, and for the CORE scheme to be fully up and running? We appreciate the importance of the anti-fraud work that it will provide. We have already debated the cost of the scheme, and I have been told that the overall cost will probably be about £4 million. Perhaps the Minister will be able to bring the House up to date. However, we will not oppose Lords amendment 33.
	Let me now deal with the really important amendments. Conservative Members are delighted that they are before us, even at this very, very late stage. We Conservatives have been calling for individual voter registration for four years and more. The Government have promised it on many occasions. This may be difficult to believe, but even on Third Reading of this Bill the Government were still only making promises and had proposed nothing substantial at all. We appreciate, however, that the full panoply of the amendments was brought forward in the House of Lords, and we are delighted to have them before our House now.

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate the points the Minister is making—and I am grateful to him for giving us Conservatives credit for having pushed for many years for these necessary amendments. He brings up the issue of the comprehensiveness of the register, however, but I have to say that I have never considered that anyone in this House, or anyone concerned in any way in promoting and safeguarding democracy, wishes anything other than to have a register that is as comprehensive as possible. How could anybody possibly argue that the register should be anything but comprehensive? Of course it is a sine qua non of a proper democratic system that the register should be comprehensive. If I have not argued for that feature, that is because I took it as a foregone conclusion that we all want the register to be comprehensive.

Eleanor Laing: But I agree with the Minister on that point, and I always have done. However, some Members on his Back Benches—sadly they are not there now, or, indeed, on any other party's Back Benches—have sought to suggest that Conservatives for some reason do not want a comprehensive register, but that is simply not true. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to put it on the record once and for all that we agree with the Government that the accuracy, comprehensiveness and integrity of the register and of the system is paramount. That is one of the reasons why we will not oppose the timetable the Minister has suggested this evening. I do not intend to vote against these Government amendments because I fully appreciate the Minister's argument. I always have appreciated it, and I believe that it is right to take this matter forward carefully and step by step. None of us wants to see a system introduced that would in any way undermine the integrity of our democratic system. I know that the Minister can get quite exercised on that point, usually when he is goaded by his Back Benchers, and I will reassure him—one more time—that I agree with him 100 per cent.

Eleanor Laing: What a pleasure it is to have a Back Bencher intervene, and we all welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He makes an extremely good point. If a new system were being implemented for the first time in an emerging democracy, it would be surprising if the Government got away with saying, "Well, yes, but it will take us a good five years to implement this." My hon. Friend's point is well made, and it is one that I have made many times, as the Minister has just said. However, I balance that with the fact that the Electoral Commission, electoral registration officers and others who will be involved in the implementation of the Government's current plans are concerned that this should not be rushed, but taken step by step to ensure that the integrity of the system is protected—and not only protected, but seen to be protected, so that there is no perception of harm being done to the system.
	Since the Minister and his colleagues started to take steps to implement the individual voter registration system for which we have been calling for many years, we have seen progress. What a pity it is that the Government had not started the process five years ago, because it would now have been implemented. I understand and share the Minister's concern for the comprehensiveness of the register, and that is one of the reasons why we have called for action on this matter for many years. It is a pity, as my hon. Friend will agree, that the Government had not commenced work on this project long ago. If they had done so, we would have a far better system in place for whenever the next general election may be.
	I may also reassure my hon. Friend if I say that we are determined that if it appears that the practicalities to which the Minister has referred can be overcome on a shorter timetable than that currently set out, that should happen. Unfortunately, that would mean making changes in primary legislation, but I am sure that a future Government, of whatever colour, could—if it turns out to be possible—bring implementation forward sooner than the Minister currently envisages.

Eleanor Laing: I can assure the Minister and the House that any future Conservative Government would never take risks with the democratic process. They would take absolutely no risks with the integrity or comprehensiveness of the register or with its accuracy. I take the Minister's point about the 2012 census. At that point, when we have the results of that census, the Electoral Commission can consider those results and weigh up the work that it and electoral registration officers will have been doing by then and it might well be possible to make judgments. I also agree with the Minister that it would be difficult to introduce a new system shortly before a general election. There should be other ways of testing the system along the way to ensure that the accuracy, integrity and comprehensiveness of the register and the system are always utterly watertight. I hope that that reassures the Minister on that point.
	I was about to say that it is unfortunate that although these matters were properly considered in another place, this House has not had a chance to examine the Government's proposals. To be fair to the Minister, however, we discussed the principle of individual voter registration in Committee. As a result of the amendment tabled in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, we were able to examine that issue and ensure that the principles of individual voter registration were properly examined in this House. I see no dissent around me. We are all agreed that the current system is part of an antiquated electoral system that depended on the pater familias of each household determining who within that household should have a vote. That, along with many other aspects of our electoral system, is old-fashioned, outdated and no longer reflects the way in which Britain in the 21st century ought to be governed. We are very pleased that we are taking these matters forward this evening.
	There have been many criticisms, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) alluded, of the way in which matters are currently conducted within our electoral system. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves, at this stage in the development of our democracy, with such an old-fashioned system of registration. However, may I ask the Minister what steps he has taken with the Electoral Commission and electoral registration officers to ensure that in 2010, when they have to start this process, there will be no more delays?
	The Minister clearly has milestones in mind. Will he undertake to report to the House on progress, so that we can tell whether the momentum that he has now built up and the enthusiasm that he has instilled in his fellow Ministers still exist and that matters are properly moving ahead? I am sure that he will be the first to say that there has been delay on this issue over the years. Now that we have got to this point of enthusiasm and unanimous support in Parliament, I hope that he will not be deterred in the work that he has begun, because the bureaucratic side of the implementation of such a system can sometimes hinder its progress. We are all agreed in principle, so let us ensure that the practicalities do not stop us.
	I hope that the Minister will consider a few other issues when he considers registration generally. Service registration is uppermost in our minds. Will he undertake to look again at the disgraceful disfranchisement of servicemen and women who are in theatres of conflict over recent years? According to the latest figures, possibly only 65 per cent. of service personnel are registered. At a time when people are daily risking and losing their lives in the service of this country, it is simply not right that the Government's change to the rules on service registration has made it more difficult for people in the armed forces to register. Surely, it should be made much easier for people in the armed forces to register.
	I agree entirely with the Minister about people who are in vulnerable situations—he mentioned the low registration among people who have problems with literacy and among certain communities in our country—but does he agree that, whatever steps we as a Parliament take, people who are serving in the armed forces and their families should be helped to register, not deterred from registering?
	The Government have agreed to increase by order the renewal period for registered service personnel to five years. Again, we have brought up that subject more than once over the past year or so. We strongly welcome the fact that the Government have indicated that they will take steps, but when will the Minister introduce that order? I can assure him and the House that, when he does introduce it, we will support it and help service personnel to register properly to vote.
	I am pleased that the Minister proposes to make progress with voluntary registration in the first instance. Again, will he undertake to report to the House on how voluntary registration is working and, likewise, on the voluntary provision of personal identifiers?
	All those elements are important in undertaking this difficult enterprise and in ensuring its success, as are the reports of the Electoral Commission. Will the Minister undertake to return to the House to allow it to discuss the Electoral Commission's reports, so that we might know how the enterprise is progressing and what more hon. Members on both sides of the House can do to make sure that this vital change in the very basis of our democratic system is introduced as soon, as accurately and as comprehensively as possible and to ensure the integrity of the system?
	Normally, at this point, Government Back Benchers jump up to challenge the Opposition's bona fides. I find that I am trying to play both parts here, since no Government Back Bencher— [ Interruption. ] I beg the Minister's pardon; his Parliamentary Private Secretary is present. No other Government Back Bencher is present in the House. I would not like it to be thought that Conservative Members had done anything other than won the argument. If I were to be challenged on the point, I would say yet again that our top priority is the integrity of the system, and the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the register, and we will do all that we can to help the Government to introduce this vital new system, which we have supported for many years.

David Howarth: There are two sub-groups in this group of amendments. The first is about the CORE scheme and setting up a body to run that scheme, and the second is perhaps the politically more important problem of individual registration. I should say at the outset that in general terms I support what the Government are doing and have no intention of calling a Division on any of these matters. I am very pleased that the Government have made considerable progress on individual registration.
	On the matter of who is to run the CORE scheme, I suppose that it might be thought a little awkward that, at a time when all political parties are saying that there are too many quangos, we propose to set up another one. However, I understand the motive for doing so. It is agreed in all parts of the House that the Electoral Commission needs to focus its activities and certainly should not be taking on new ones. My only concern, which I mentioned in an intervention on the Minister, is that the proposal simply sets up the mechanism for transferring the function to a new body, and it does so in general terms, so that the new body could be almost anything—a corporation sole or another public authority. All the good things that the Minister rightly mentioned about the need for security and independence are not provided by the proposal; they are simply his intention. I have a slight worry that yet again what we are putting in statute is simply a mechanism and, in future, some other Government might use that in a way that the current Minister does not intend. I cannot see many sinister uses to which the provision might be put, but I want to put it on the record that the way in which the matter is being dealt with is not ideal.
	The point about the second, crucial matter of individual registration, which the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) made several times, is that if it is done properly it is not a threat to the comprehensiveness of the register. The Minister also made that point. It increases the integrity of the register and that of the elections themselves. The validity and credibility of democratic elections depend both on the register being comprehensive and on its having a great deal of integrity. If the register is not comprehensive, it is not the electorate who are making a choice but some subset of the electorate. If it is not secure and we cannot be sure that the people whose votes are being counted are electors, that people are not voting more than once or that there is not fraud going on, equally there is a threat to democratic credibility. We need both comprehensiveness and security, and I am pleased that the Minister intends the approach that he has chosen to produce both.
	I am delighted that the Government have moved such a long way from their starting point, which can be characterised as them saying, "Well, there are risks in doing this, so we shouldn't do it." There are always risks, but the point is to minimise them and move forward in a way that should produce a good result all round.
	I have two further points to make. On the first, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) is not here, because he made some serious allegations, at the start of the day, about an unnamed Liberal Democrat council leader. It could have been any one of three people; he did not specify who it was. The hon. Gentleman said that that person somehow took the view, on behalf of my party, that it would be in our interest if the register were not comprehensive. A short reflection on the situation in my constituency should have made the hon. Gentleman realise that that could not possibly be so. The Minister listed the groups of people who, in an exercise of individual registration, are at risk of being removed from the register wrongly, or of not getting on to the register in time, and at the top of that list are students and young people. If Members think about the interests of my party, it will not take them long to realise that a change in the system that removed from the register large numbers of students and young people would not necessarily be to our advantage.

David Howarth: All that I can say to the hon. Lady is that that is not our experience. The fundamental point—the point of fairness—is very clear. There needs to be a process of voluntary identifiers. It should be tested, and any distorting effects should be corrected. After that, the system should be made compulsory. That is what the Government are proposing. The only disagreement is about the time scale, and how long the process should take. I accept what the Minister says—that there are various important milestones, that we should not rush the process and that we should not take any risks—but as I understand it, in the House of Lords, the proposal was not that the timetable should definitely be shorter. It was simply that, if the Electoral Commission were of the opinion that the move to compulsory registration could take place earlier than 2014-15 without the risks that the Minister mentioned coming into play, there should be a power to allow that to happen.
	I do not think that anybody was suggesting that the timetable be artificially shortened, or that any risk be taken with the comprehensiveness of the register. All that was suggested was that there be a careful process by which the timetable could be shortened if that turned out to be a safe thing to do. One can imagine circumstances in which that would be the case. A system using the three identifiers that have been suggested—the signature, the national insurance number and the date of birth—might turn out to work well, and there might be no need to use any other identifiers. The problem of the reduction in numbers on the electoral register might turn out to be manageable in a shorter period, with the result that there was no need for any further experiment. At that point, one can imagine the Electoral Commission saying, "This is all working very well. We can take a year or 18 months off the timetable." That was all that was being proposed; nothing of the risky nature that the Minister suggested was put forward. When the move to compulsory registration is made, either through the Government's present scheme or through the scheme as it emerges under a future Government, I do not think that we will be in any danger of taking excessive risks.
	I have only one other point to make, and it could be made on a whole range of Lords amendments before us. I am slightly worried about the breadth of the order-making power in Lords amendment 38. That order-making power allows the Government to vary the kinds of identifier that might be required—or asked for, in the voluntary part of the process.
	The Minister said that there might be technological changes that bring in other opportunities. I am worried that those technological changes include ID cards. One of the problems with the ID card scheme is that Ministers say, "We have no intention of bringing it in compulsorily," but it turns out that their version of "voluntary" includes such things as getting a passport, as if the right to travel abroad were simply a matter of discretion or, as the proposal appears to allow, voting. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the Government do not see requiring the use of an ID card as part of a voluntary identifier scheme.
	With that caveat and with some disagreement with the Government on the absoluteness of their attachment to the 2014-15 timetable, I am content with the amendments proposed by the House of Lords.

Christopher Chope: I shall say a few words about the timetable relating to individual voter registration. I have taken an interest in the subject over the years, and have had conversations with the Electoral Commission. We all know that the Electoral Commission was extremely frustrated by the way in which the Government seemed to be blocking its suggestions that moves were needed towards individual voter registration.
	To put the matter in context, at the end of last month I was a monitor on behalf of the Council of Europe at the general election in Albania. One of the polling stations that I visited was in quite a large town—not Tirana, but probably the second or third largest town in Albania. While my colleague and I were making it clear that we were monitoring the voting process, a woman came up to us. She was hysterical—that is an accurate way to describe it—because she said that her son, who had died three or four years previously, had been put back on the register by the Government.
	That is the allegation that the woman made. For her, that was part of a conspiracy. She thought that it was the means by which the Government were putting people on the register and, knowing that they would not be able to vote, using their nominees to vote for them. This is a serious matter. That little cameo illustrates how seriously it is taken in an emerging democracy. In the course of monitoring that election, I said to some of our Albanians, I hope not too condescendingly, "Well, you are only a relatively young democracy." The response I got was, "No, we are a very old democracy. We've been going at it for over 18 years."
	Given that the Electoral Commission had been requesting the move to individual voter registration for some time, and the fact that we have had experience of what can be achieved in Northern Ireland, I am not satisfied that we need to wait for two more general elections before we can implement the measure. That seems to be the effect of what the Minister is suggesting. I accept that it is too late to introduce individual voter registration for the next general election, which I hope will be even sooner than the Government fear it will be. However, I do not give up hope that we might be able to introduce individual voter registration in the general election after next.
	I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) is the Minister charged with that, she will take it on her shoulders to ensure that, as an incoming Government, we accept that where there's a will, there's a way, and that there is a strong will on the part of the British people and among most Members of the House of Commons to have a better system. That system will incorporate the principles embodied in individual voter registration. We may want to wait until the 2011 census, but is that absolutely essential?
	Individual voter registration could be linked to the issue of individual voter apathy. My 19-year-old daughter is now on the electoral register, but she did not put her name on it; I did. If the question of whether she wanted to place her name on the electoral register had been put to her, it would have raised her awareness and the issue of responsibility. We in this House often bemoan the low participation rate of relatively young voters in our electoral process, but that may be because we are too patronising. We say, "There's no need for you to register yourself, sonny; we'll deal with that." Then, we present them with the fait accompli close to the election and ask, "Are you going to go out and vote?"
	Contrary to some of the concerns that Government Front-Benchers have expressed, I think that there could be a significant positive to the process. We would be promoting individual responsibility among young adults, so that they were more aware of the issues involved in participating in elections and in our democracy.
	I hope that nothing my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest has said today from the Opposition Front Bench will preclude an active campaign by an incoming Conservative Government to try to accelerate the process so that we can have individual voter registration at the general election after next.

Michael Wills: We have had an extremely interesting exchange of views, and I am grateful for all contributions to the debate.
	I shall briefly address some of the concerns that have been raised. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) rightly raised the importance of data protection and data security in the CORE project, and, on that, I absolutely agree, which is why the Information Commissioner will be consulted on it. The hon. Lady asked about the timetable, and we are actively looking at that. Indeed, we need to ensure that it is the most appropriate way forward. It is an opportunity to ensure that we are ready when the time comes, but we are looking at it.
	The hon. Lady mentioned the cost of the CORE system. To date, the figure is £3.7 million, and the great bulk of that money has been spent on grants to local authorities to standardise the format in which data are collected and stored. That work is important and it makes the data much easier to use generally, so, whatever happens to the CORE project, we believe that it will have been money well spent on improving the electoral system.
	I was grateful for what the hon. Lady said about the timetable for the move to individual registration. She asked us to come back to the House regularly to report on its progress, and I am happy to give her that reassurance. That is precisely why we have asked the Electoral Commission to produce annual reports. It is important that the whole process be scrutinised, and every Member will have important personal and constituency experience to contribute to the process. In the past and today, the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) has given us his experience from his rather special constituency, but every constituency is special and there will be lessons that every Member can teach us as we move forward. This Government certainly want to learn those lessons. We welcome the scrutiny and transparency that the hon. Member for Epping Forest advocates, and we intend to have that. I am grateful to her for supporting the process.
	The hon. Lady raised also the important question of service registration, and I agree with everything that she said about that. She will recall that we discussed the issue in Committee. As she mentioned, we have already agreed to raise from three to five years the service declaration period for members of the armed forces. We will introduce that as soon as possible, and we recognise its importance. Ministry of Justice officials will meet Ministry of Defence and Electoral Commission officials to review the information campaigns that have run since 2005. They have seen significant improvements in registration, but not enough, and I share her concerns about the matter. We need to do everything that we can, and we will continue to do so. I remind the hon. Lady that in Committee I said that hon. Members on both sides of the House who had significant garrisons in their constituencies could come to see me with their own suggestions. So far, not a single one has taken advantage of that opportunity. I repeat the invitation, and I am sure that she will do her best to publicise it. We want to get the issue right, and we will do everything that we can to do that.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge raised a point about there being another quango, and I understand what he said. As I have already said, I hope that he will be reassured by the fact that the measure will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and that both the Information Commissioner and the Electoral Commission will have to be consulted.
	Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) is not here; the hon. Member for Cambridge made some comments about him. In my hon. Friend's defence, I should say that he is concerned about the robustness of the governance system. He was using an example; we could find others if we trawled through our own experiences. His main concern, I think, was one of principle about the system of governance. As I said, we are considering that issue, notwithstanding the fact that the great majority of electoral registration officers in local authorities run by all parties behave with complete propriety and are jealous guardians of the integrity of the system.
	The hon. Gentleman raised again the worry about the power to change the identifier. I can only say to him again that we intend to use dates of birth, signatures and national insurance numbers, which cover the great majority of the eligible population. However, it would be unwise and imprudent of us not to allow some flexibility in the system. Who knows what the future may hold?
	The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) made an interesting contribution in diverting our attention to his recent experiences in Albania. I am glad that he has been present for at least part of the extended progress of the Bill and I am grateful for his contribution. I suggest that he takes some reading with him the next time he goes overseas. He might be interested in the Electoral Commission's reports on recent elections in this country; the most recent was produced with the Association of Chief Police Officers. I think that he will be reassured by the commentary on the incidence of fraud in this country; the report says that it is declining. I strongly recommend that report to the hon. Gentleman. He is obviously agitated about the issue, and when he next goes to Albania or anywhere else he can comfort himself by reading it.
	More generally, I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to what I was saying about the risks of a precipitate rush to individual registration. Furthermore, he did not seem to listen to his party's Front Benchers on that issue. I hope that he will read  Hansard tomorrow and see that we are moving as rapidly as we can towards that desirable objective, in a way commensurate with the twin objectives that are immutable in the eyes of Front Benchers of both Opposition parties. They are that the register must be as comprehensive and as accurate as possible. We must achieve those twin ideals.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendments 2 to 8, 51 to 65 and 99.

Michael Wills: The Government tabled several amendments to the Bill's provisions on the Electoral Commission's powers and governance at various stages in the other place. These amendments all respond to concerns raised in this House, in the other place, or by the Electoral Commission. I will briefly outline the effect of each amendment.
	Lords amendment 1 follows a report by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which suggested that the clause be amended to ensure that an order made under paragraph 16 of schedule 19C, which prescribes the amount of a fixed monetary penalty, will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Government were happy to agree to that. The amendment adds a reference to paragraph 1(5) of schedule 19C—the paragraph that relates to the definition of fixed monetary penalties—to the list of paragraphs at clause 3(4), which is the list of parts that will be subject to affirmative resolution. The consequence of the amendment will be that any order that sets or alters the level of fixed monetary penalties will be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses.
	Lords amendment 2 requires the leaders of the three largest qualifying parties in Westminster to nominate three candidates each for consideration as nominated commissioner.

Pete Wishart: The Minister knows that I have an interest in this issue. Is there any reason whatsoever why the three main parties exclusively will have the opportunity to nominate three commissioners, and yet the minority parties—the parties of government of all the other legislatures throughout the United Kingdom—will have the opportunity to nominate only one? Is it not the case that the House of Lords, like this place, has looked at these issues solely through the Westminster prism and forgotten about the new multi-legislature UK in which we now live?

Michael Wills: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his indefatigable persistence in raising this point—that is a great tribute to his party. As he well remembers, we have been round this course several times already, and I do not want to tire the patience of the House by repeating it. We have not forgotten the measures of devolution that we are proud to have introduced, but that is precisely what they are—measures of devolution. This remains the UK Parliament, and we have discussed this at great length already.
	We developed the amendment in discussion with the Electoral Commission. It introduces a degree of competition into the process for appointing nominated commissioners by ensuring that there is a pool of candidates from which the Speaker's Committee can select four candidates on merit, one from each of the three largest nominating parties, as well as from a smaller party.

Michael Wills: Yes, precisely because they are smaller.
	Lords amendments 3 and 4 are consequential amendments.
	Lords amendments 5 and 6 enable the commission's chief executive to increase the one-year restriction on previous political activity for commission staff in clause 7 to a period of between two and five years by designating individual posts in the commission that will be subject to an expanded restriction. The chief executive may designate a post in this way if he or she reasonably believes that such a restriction is necessary to maintain public confidence in the effectiveness of the commission in carrying out its functions. The length of the restriction must be determined by reference to the seniority of the post and the political sensitivity of the matters with which the postholder is likely to have to deal. The amendments are necessary to ensure that the small number of posts for which a one-year restriction may not be suitable owing to their seniority or the likelihood of dealing with politically sensitive matters can be designated as subject to a longer restriction. The amendments also place a requirement on the chief executive to consult the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission on the posts that he intends to designate, which will help to ensure that designations are justified and not unduly restrictive.
	Lords amendment 7 excludes all commission staff dealing with electoral boundary work from the reduced one-year restriction in clause 7, as it is envisaged that they will eventually transfer to the independent boundary committee established in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill. It is envisaged that under that Bill, a 10-year restriction will be retained along the lines of the one that is currently in place in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The amendment will ensure that the level of political restriction on the appointment of boundary staff remains consistent in the intervening period between the commencement of clause 7 and the creation of the new boundary committee.
	Lords amendment 8 restricts the Electoral Commission's public awareness role in section 13 of the 2000 Act to educating people about current electoral systems in the United Kingdom. It does so by removing existing obligations placed upon the commission to provide information about current and pending systems of government in the UK and about EU institutions. It takes forward the substance of another amendment along the same lines in the other place that was widely supported.
	In practice, the commission's function will be, as it is now, to provide information on the mechanics of the electoral process, including electoral registration procedures—those are important in the light of our preceding discussion—how to vote and any changes to the electoral system and connected matters. Lords amendment 99 makes consequential amendments to section 13 of the Act that are required as a result.
	Lords amendments 51 and 52 provide for a five-year time limit on the commission's ability to issue a disclosure notice requesting information or documents from former treasurers or other party officials for its supervisory purposes. That is necessary to ensure that an unduly onerous burden is not placed on former treasurers or officers of parties to retain information relating to income and expenditure indefinitely. I hope that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) will welcome that. I recall that he raised the matter in Committee.
	Lords amendment 53 narrows the commission's powers of entry under the Bill by removing the Bill's original extension of the powers to those categories formerly supervised by the commission—in other words, any entity that would have fallen within paragraph 2(1)(a) to (d) of schedule 19B to the 2000 Act. That is necessary to support our intention that the Bill will extend the commission's powers so that it is a more effective regulator, but it will not do so unduly, particularly on the delicate issue of entry powers.
	Lords amendment 54 takes forward the substance of another amendment in the other place by requiring a magistrate to issue a warrant to the commission to enter premises to inspect documents. In addition, it ensures that the amendments will be workable in practice by setting out the criteria that a magistrate will have to be satisfied of before issuing a warrant. The effect is that the commission will not be able to enter the premises of those to whom the power applies without an inspection warrant. Importantly, the amendment makes it clear that entry may take place only for non-investigatory purposes and for the purpose of inspecting documents relating to income and expenditure. Lords amendments 55, 61, 62, and 64 are consequential.
	Lords amendment 56 will require the commission's applications for court orders, to enforce earlier notices requiring documents, to be approved by the High Court, or the Court of Session in Scotland. That is in recognition of concerns about vesting such a power in a magistrates court, not least given the potential sensitivity of such applications.
	Finally, Lords amendment 60 extends the court order powers that enable the commission to enforce its requests for documents, so that they may be used also to compel information or an explanation if an earlier notice under paragraph 3(2) of schedule 19B to the 2000 Act requesting one of those things has not been complied with. That is necessary to ensure that the commission has full, effective investigatory capacity. Lords amendments 57 to 59, 63 and 65 are consequential.

David Howarth: None of the matters that we are considering is now enormously contentious, but I want to make one or two comments, especially about clause 5 and Lords amendment 54.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) is right that we have gone back and forth on clause 5 about political commissioners. It is a difficult and delicate subject, because introducing an expressly political element into the Electoral Commission will always be difficult when its tradition has been non-political and deliberately distanced from politics, for obvious reasons. However, we all agree that the commission could do with a more experienced, perhaps more down-to-earth element in its membership. That requires overcoming some difficulty in appointing the political commissioners.
	I remain slightly nervous of the party leader route for appointing political commissioners. It is obviously better for party leaders to propose three nominees rather than one because that means that we are not dealing with direct patronage, with which I have some difficulty. I am still unclear about exactly how the process will work from there. What will the precise procedure be for deciding which of the three is to be appointed? I would prefer a much more open procedure, similar to that for other public appointments, whereby something like open competition is introduced. In an ideal world, I would prefer more open competition for the posts. That is my first worry. Why have the Government rejected a rather more normal process of appointment in such cases?
	The second point is the one that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is quite right to raise over and over. We now live in a multi-legislature, multi-political system polity—we have the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the London assembly. Our political system is far more complex than it was 20 years ago. It seems odd, to say no more than that, that the ruling party in a very important part of this country—Scotland—will not be represented on the commission.
	I made the following point in Committee and I repeat it now—indeed, this fundamental problem would have been dealt with by a perfectly sensible amendment that the hon. Gentleman tabled on Report, but it was not voted on, even though other amendments that were not debated were voted on. Why should we not transfer responsibility for Scottish elections to Scotland? Should that not be part of the devolution settlement? Why is a UK body responsible for specifically Scottish elections? I do not understand why that should be the case, and I urge the Government to think about it further.
	On Lords amendment 54 and the warrant procedure, I can see what the Government are doing and what Members of the House of Lords were doing, but I am a bit confused about how the system will work in practice. In particular, it is a condition of obtaining a warrant that
	"permission to inspect...has been requested by the Commission and has been unreasonably refused"
	by the person against whom the inspection request was made. However, how is it to be decided whether the refusal was unreasonable? The application appears to be for a warrant, which is issued ex parte, with only one of the parties present. Warrants are granted by magistrates in living rooms. My wife is a magistrate and she has granted warrants in our living room. Granting a warrant is not a formal court procedure, with both parties present. Without both parties present, how is it to be fairly decided that the refusal was unreasonable? I fear that the provisions have not been fully thought through. Nevertheless, I accept the need for safeguards—indeed, safeguards in this area are important—and I welcome all the other amendments.

Pete Wishart: It will not surprise the Minister that I wish to return to the question of political commissioners, although I can assure him that this will be the last time that he and I debate it across the Chamber.
	The Minister's answer to my intervention was totally inadequate. It is just not good enough to say that because we are a smaller party in this House we should not get a proper look-in when it comes to the arrangements for the Electoral Commission. The commission has responsibilities and obligations not just to this House, but to every devolved legislature across the United Kingdom, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) noted. We are in great danger of allowing the Electoral Commission to become the plaything of this House. However, it must properly reflect the new United Kingdom, with all its devolved institutions, and the reality of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies.
	My question for the Minister, which I hope he will spend some time answering—that is, if he is prepared to listen to it—is this: why is it right that the three main London-based parties have the opportunity to nominate three commissioners and the smaller parties, as he calls them, have the opportunity to nominate only one? He may refer to the smaller parties in this place, let me remind him that we are the Government in Scotland, in one of the major legislatures in the United Kingdom. The Democratic Unionist party has a share in a coalition in Northern Ireland and Plaid Cymru, our colleagues on these Benches, has a share in power in a coalition in Wales. We are the Governments of the rest of the United Kingdom.

Pete Wishart: It is with a due degree of anticipation that I listened to that contribution, and I am not disappointed or surprised by the hon. Lady's comments. Of course this is the United Kingdom Parliament, but all I am saying—and I hope that she will accept this—is that the Electoral Commission has obligations and responsibilities beyond this House. It is unfortunate that the House of Lords refused to recognise that, just as this House has done. Once again, they are viewing these matters exclusively through a Westminster and House of Commons prism, and after all these debates, we have moved no further forward.
	I do not know how the role of the fourth commissioner, who is to be allocated to the minority parties, is to be determined. I still believe that they will have to be allocated to the Democratic Unionist party, as the largest minority party. That would be right and proper. Certainly, if the Scottish National party were the largest minority party and we did not secure that commissioner, I would be very disappointed. The commissioner will have to go to the largest party; there is no other basis on which that matter can be determined. That is not good enough, however.
	We have failed to come to terms with the new reality of the UK. It is disappointing to see from these amendments that the House of Lords has not recognised the reality of a multi-legislature, multi-party UK. I hope that the Minister will spend a couple of minutes considering these questions, and that he will try somehow to reassure me that the new Electoral Commission, through the electoral commissioners, will be able to deal adequately with these issues and to look out for the whole of the UK and not just this House.

Michael Wills: I will try to answer the questions relatively briefly, although, given the non-contentious nature of the issues, we have had quite a lively exchange.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) asked why the party leaders were still involved. If I may, I shall deal with the questions raised by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) as well. The whole point of people with electoral experience going on to the Electoral Commission is that they should bring with them not partisan affiliations or party political considerations but their experience of the political process. There has to be a selection process, and the party leaders are clearly the best placed to have an overview about who the most appropriate people in their parties will be. That should then be subject to an open competition. That seems to strike the right balance.
	I say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire that we can debate the role of the United Kingdom Parliament, and I again pay tribute to his persistence in trying to squash every issue through the prism of nationalist politics. Not everything should be seen in that way. There is still a position for the UK Parliament in the constitutional arrangements of this country, and that remains paramount, however much he would like to see it changed. This is the last exchange that he and I will have on this subject—on this particular Bill, anyway—and I would like to reassure him that, in the end, whoever emerges on to the Electoral Commission to fulfil the new roles of political commissioners will be expected to put aside partisan considerations. They will bring to bear their experience of the democratic political process in this country, and it will not matter whether they come from the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrat party, the Labour party, or, indeed, one of the smaller parties, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive my using that term. They will all be expected to put aside their partisan considerations and to bring their experience to bear. I hope that, with all that, I have given hon. Members enough to persuade them to agree to the amendments.
	 Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
	 Lords amendments 2 to 8 , 51 to 65 and 99 agreed to.

Motion made, and Question p roposed , That this House agrees with Lords amendment 9.— (Mr. Wills.)

Jonathan Djanogly: Clause 8 creates a new responsibility for donors to political parties to clarify the source of donations. Following the Government's recent amendments made in the other place, donors giving more than £7,500 will be required to make a declaration of whether another person is providing them with any money or other benefit worth more than £7,500. The impact of the measure will still be widespread and costly—even if not quite so much as before—in terms of time and money for parties at local level, which is where such burdens are most heavily felt.
	Political parties need sufficient funds to fulfil their democratic functions. However, there is a paradox at the heart of party politics in the United Kingdom: although there is recognition that political parties are key in mobilising local political activity and are a central vehicle in implementing civic engagement, the membership of political parties, the turnout at elections and the trust and confidence in politicians are at an all-time low. That has major implications for the financial management of political parties. Modern centralised campaigns have resulted in escalating—
	 Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	 The Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83 F ), That this House agrees with Lords amendment 9.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Lords amendment 9 accordingly agreed to.
	 The Speaker then put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 8 3F ).
	 Lords amendments 10, 13, 28, 66 to 68, 14, 48, 49, 100 to 102, 104, 15 to 24, 103, 25 to 27, 69 to 92, 107, 29 to 32 and 93 to 95 agreed to.

Barbara Keeley: With permission, I should like to make a short business statement. Given the situation in Afghanistan, I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members will agree that the subject is appropriate for a fuller debate than we had originally planned for this week. I announce the following business:
	The business for Thursday 16 July will now be—topical debate on the preparation for the Copenhagen climate change conference followed by general debate on Afghanistan.
	In addition, there has been a change to one of the subjects selected by the Official Opposition on Wednesday 15 July. The first part will now be a debate on US/UK extradition treaty followed by a debate on care for the elderly.

Shailesh Vara: May I thank the hon. Lady for her announcement and say that Conservative Members very much welcome her statement? The whole House, indeed the whole country, is concerned about the situation in Afghanistan, especially about the fate of our brave young men and women who daily put their lives on the line for Afghanistan's future and our continued freedom.
	It is regrettable, however, that this announcement has had to be forced from the Government—and only after a weekend of bad headlines and distressing news of casualties. The House will no doubt reflect on the Government's tendency to take action only when it is in their own political interests to do so. Will the Deputy Leader of the House give us an assurance that she will do her utmost to ensure that no Government statements are made on Thursday so that we have the maximum time to discuss this crucial issue?  [Interruption.] I fail to see why the Government Chief Whip is laughing; given the seriousness of this issue, I think it is perfectly in order to ask for it to be accorded the importance it deserves—an importance that not only we but the whole country attaches to it.

Barbara Keeley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the announcement. I tried to contact him a number of times this afternoon to warn him of it. He will understand that it is not for me to say who will lead the debate; it will be decided through the usual channels. However, we have heard what he has said.
	My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made a point about keeping the House informed during the recess following last Thursday's business statement. I will ensure that she is made aware of the point that has been made this evening, and, if necessary, touches on it in this Thursday's business statement.

Christopher Chope: I welcome the statement, but will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us when she expects to fit in a debate on the Government's motion calling for a Select Committee on reform of the House of Commons? Last Thursday there was a spare hour that the Government did not use to enable the motion to be debated. Obviously it less likely now that we will have—

That the draft Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (Foreign Travel Notification Requirements) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 23 June, be approved. —(Mary Creagh.)
	 Question agreed to.

Motion made,
	(1) That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and make recommendations on the following matters:
	(a) the appointment of members and chairmen of select committees;
	(b) scheduling business in the House;
	(c) enabling the public to initiate debates and proceedings in the House; and
	(d) such other matters as appear to the Committee to be closely connected with the matters set out above, and to report on these matters by 13 November 2009;
	(2) That the Committee also consider such other matters as may be referred to it from time to time;
	(3) That the Committee consist of eighteen Members;
	(4) That Mr Graham Allen, Mr Clive Betts, Mr Graham Brady, Mr David Clelland, Mr David Drew, Natascha Engel, Dr Evan Harris, David Howarth, Mr Michael Jack, Mr Greg Knight, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Mr Chris Mullin, Dr Nick Palmer, Martin Salter, Dr Phyllis Starkey, Mr Andrew Tyrie, Dr Tony Wright and Sir George Young be members of the Committee;
	(5) That Dr Tony Wright be Chairman of the Committee;
	(6) That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time and to appoint specialist advisers;
	(7) That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament. —(Mary Creagh.)

Ordered ,
	That the Order of 8 December 2008 relating to the Speaker's Committee on search of offices on the Parliamentary Estate be rescinded and the following Order be made:
	(1) That, following the search of a Member's office in the Parliamentary Estate by the police and the seizure of material therein, a committee be appointed to review the internal processes of the House administration for granting permission for such action, to consider any matter relating to privilege arising from the police operation, and to make recommendations for the future;
	(2) That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to report from time to time; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House and to appoint one specialist adviser either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference;
	(3) That Sir Alan Beith, Mr David Blunkett, Sir Menzies Campbell, Ann Coffey, Mr Doug Henderson, Ms Patricia Hewitt, Mr Michael Howard and Sir Malcolm Rifkind be members of the Committee;
	(4) That Sir Menzies Campbell be the Chairman of the Committee; and
	(5) That the committee report by 31 December 2009. —(Mary Creagh.)

Motion made,
	That Linda Gilroy be discharged from the South West Regional Select Committee and Roger Berry be added.— (Mary Creagh.)

Ordered,
	That Mr George Mudie be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr James Plaskitt be added.  —— ( Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection )

Bob Spink: On 3 June, I formally objected to the location of a Sure Start centre at Jotmans hall school in Benfleet after residents told me of their anger at a hare-brained scheme being secretly pushed through and their disbelief at the failure of councillors to inform or consult them or to control properly the council's policies on such important matters, or even to be honest and transparent with them. I was not surprised, therefore, when I received a petition signed by many extremely decent people, each of whom care deeply about their community and environment and the safety of children at that school The petitioners are local residents who pay the council and councillors to protect them, not harm them.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of John Hogarth, parents of Jotmans hall school, local residents and others,
	Declares that the proposed development of a Sure Start centre at Jotmans hall school in Benfleet should be rejected because building the centre at that school would bring unacceptable problems including: compromising security for young children and the school buildings, including late at night and at weekends; destroying valuable green belt land and playing fields; wasting a vast amount of public money; increasing parking problems for school users and residents; and imposing highway safety dangers; further declares that the councils are pushing ahead with this plan because if they switch to other much more appropriate sites, they could lose their £500,000 budget for the project and that this demonstrates a cavalier approach by the councils to the management of public funds.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Essex county council and the Castle Point borough council to consider this objection and Petition and to reject the Jotmans hall site and to co-operate together in investigating more suitable sites, and to do this with public transparency and to undertake fully public consultation on any sites which are thought may be suitable.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000392]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Mary Creagh.)

Emily Thornberry: "The Spirit of Humanity" sailed from Larnaca, Cyprus at the end of June, attempting to get to Gaza seaport and sailing under a Greek flag. There were 21 passengers and crew on board, from 11 different countries, including six British people. One of the latter was my constituent, Miss Alex Harrison, who lives on the Marquess estate. In the early hours of 30 June, while they were still in international waters, they were surrounded by Israeli gunboats and threatened with being fired on. Their radar and communications systems were jammed and they were warned hourly that they must change course because, "You are headed for a blockaded area. All force necessary will be used." Lights were flashed at them throughout the night and, when they were 24 miles from Gaza, Zodiac boats appeared and then left again.
	About four miles into Gaza's waters, the boats reappeared—six boats with 12 soldiers in each, wearing full-face balaclavas. They boarded the boat and all the passengers lay on the floor. My constituent, as a member of the crew, was still standing and was pushed to the floor at gunpoint.

Emily Thornberry: It would seem that that is the case, and I shall ask the Minister to confirm that.
	It took seven hours for the boat to get into the port of Ashdod, where those on board were greeted by hundreds of jeering Israeli soldiers. The crew and passengers were held for between one and seven days, charged with illegally entering Israel and deported. That was ironic, because Israel was the last place they wanted to be. They wanted to go to Gaza—and Gaza as part of a Palestinian state. They were trying to publicise what has been happening in Gaza recently, and I shall outline some of those events.
	As hon. Members know, Gaza is a small coastal strip, cut off from the outside world. Even before the latest hostilities, drastic restrictions on the movement of people and goods were imposed by the Israeli authorities, especially since October 2007. Those have led to worsening poverty, rising unemployment and deteriorating public services such as health care, water and sanitation.
	When the eyes of the world were on Gaza, in the immediate aftermath of the military action by Israel, it was hoped that the tunnels would be closed and the crossings would be opened, and that Gaza might have a chance. However, six months later, after the hostilities had finished and the eyes of the world had looked away, restrictions on imports continued. It is impossible for Gazans to rebuild their lives. The quantities of goods now entering Gaza fall well short of what is required to meet the population's needs. According to the International Red Cross, in May 2009, only 2,662 truckloads of goods entered Gaza from Israel, a decrease of almost 80 per cent. compared with the 11,392 truckloads allowed in during April 2007 before Hamas took over the territory.

Emily Thornberry: I rely on the International Committee of the Red Cross and its excellent report, published in June, which gives an up-to-date assessment of what is happening in Gaza. Of course, it is always difficult to get access to information on which everyone can rely, but surely no one can argue with the ICRC on the issue. For example, it states that
	"water and sanitation services could collapse at any moment"
	in Gaza, which
	"raises the spectre of a major public health crisis."
	It goes on to say:
	"The only way to address this crisis is to lift import restrictions on spare parts, water pipes and building materials such as cement and steel so that homes can be rebuilt and vital infrastructure maintained and upgraded."
	Terrible stories are coming out about health care. One of the people suffering as a result of the restrictions is a woman whose case is highlighted by the ICRC, who has a pancreatic tumour. She is only 26, her name is Do'aa, and she has been waiting since January 2009 for permission to travel through Israel to get to Jordan for an operation. She has so far been refused, and she is likely to die.
	Those who wish to get out of Gaza in order to get health care, because there is not sufficient and adequate health care in Gaza for those who have terrible conditions, find themselves caught in a bureaucratic maze. They request permission to leave the territory, which is incredibly complicated, and they find themselves waiting for many months. Many of them die. For those who do get permission to leave, even getting through the crossing can be very arduous. Patients on life support machines are
	"removed from ambulances and placed on stretchers, then carried 60-80 metres through the crossing to ambulances waiting on the other side."
	Patients who can walk unassisted often
	"face extensive questioning before they are allowed through the crossing for medical treatment—or, as sometimes happens"
	they are simply refused entry into Israel and turned back again.
	The economy is strangled; there is soaring unemployment and alarming poverty. We simply have to allow Gaza to breathe. Local industry, agriculture, fisheries and other businesses have not been allowed to rebuild, to import essential inputs or to export their products, but even that would take time. The crisis has become so severe and entrenched that even if all the crossings were to be opened tomorrow it would take years for the economy to recover.
	We must end the virtual blockade of Gaza. The crossing points must be opened and the legitimate security concerns of the Israelis have to be balanced with the right of Palestinians to live normal and dignified lives. Re-establishing humanitarian aid is really only the international community pleading to be allowed to put sticking plasters on to Gaza. What the people of the region need, more than anything else, is political courage. They need a political solution that will give peace and security to the people of Israel and Palestine.

Paul Rowen: Whatever might be said about Israel's security arrangements—they are a matter for Israel—and given that the ship was unarmed, when the Minister gets a statement from the Israeli Government, what action will he propose that the British Government should take to ensure that, in future, unarmed vessels trying to deliver aid to Gaza are not impounded in such a way?

Ivan Lewis: I have made it clear that we expect individuals and organisations who seek to get aid to Gaza to do so in consultation with the appropriate authorities. We advise that that is the best way to proceed if organisations and individuals genuinely want to get humanitarian aid through to the people of Gaza. I will not give a running commentary on what the United Kingdom may do in circumstances that may prevail at some stage in future; that would not be appropriate in this debate. I shall make some progress now.
	We are very concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We know that the conflict earlier this year intensified an already difficult situation. It is true that the pace of deterioration has slowed since the ceasefire in January, but it is evident that the humanitarian situation remains extremely serious. The strict border restrictions, including on legitimate aid, reconstruction materials, trade goods and the movement of people, are having a major impact on the lives of ordinary Gazans, who suffer serious hardship. Approximately 90 per cent. of Gazans depend partly on food aid. During May, according to the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the number of truckloads of goods allowed entry into Gaza was approximately 2,960. However, that is not enough; it represents less than a quarter of the monthly average of truckloads that entered Gaza in the first five months of 2007, before the tightening of the border restrictions in June of that year. We are concerned that those restrictions, and Hamas's control of the economy and the smuggling tunnels, mean that the people of Gaza are being denied hope, access to the means to rebuild their lives, and the chance of economic growth and education.
	Although there is no permanent, physical Israeli presence in Gaza, Israel retains significant control over Gaza's borders, airspace, and territorial waters. It therefore retains obligations under the fourth Geneva convention. The convention is clear that an occupying power must co-operate in allowing the passage and distribution of relief consignments. It is therefore essential that the Government of Israel ease the restrictions on the Gaza border and allow an immediate increase in the flow of essential aid and reconstruction materials into Gaza, as well as the legitimate flow of trade, goods and people. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the United Kingdom's concerns on that general issue in his meeting with the Israeli Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, on 6 July, and in his conversations with the Israeli Foreign Minister—I referred to one of those conversations—which took place on 13 May and 1 July.
	Together with the European Union, the United States, and the wider international community, we will continue to press the Israeli Government at the highest levels to reduce the restrictions, but Israel is not the only party that should move. Hamas must renounce violence, recognise Israel, accept previous agreements, and work with the Palestinian Authority towards a positive outcome in the current national dialogue negotiations presided over by Egypt. Hamas must also release Gilad Shalit, whom it kidnapped and has held illegally for more than three years without contact with his family, or access for the Red Cross. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated on the third anniversary of Gilad Shalit's abduction on 25 June, we call on Hamas for his immediate, unconditional and safe release. We share the Shalit family's dismay at Hamas's refusal to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to Gilad.
	In conclusion, I plan to visit Israel and the Palestinian territories in the summer. I intend to develop my first-hand experience, as a Minister who is new in this role, of the challenges faced by both Israelis and Palestinians. I shall take the strong message that the United Kingdom intends to pursue a leadership role in securing a two-state solution in the middle east. The recent speech by President Obama in Cairo gives us a new sense of hope and a way forward. We welcome the fact that Prime Minister Netanyahu has for the first time acknowledged that the two-state solution was the objective. However, there is a long way to go, in terms of the Israelis' willingness to move on settlements. We also believe that the Arab peace initiative offers a promising basis for future negotiations.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.